The real Bosworth battle location?

So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on Ambion
Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that memorial
stone stands!

And probably it was Dadlington all along!

Thanks to Sally Henshaw, Secretary of the East Midlands Branch for
drawing my attention to this link to a report published in the
Leicester Mercury on 22 October 2007.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874118
7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch
<http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874118
7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch>

I just got this notification from John Ashdown-Hill,
too. The URL is difficult; I put an entry with an
easier link at

http://r3member.blogspot.com/

--- Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never
> set foot on Ambion
> Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die
> where that memorial
> stone stands!
>
> And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>
> Thanks to Sally Henshaw, Secretary of the East
> Midlands Branch for
> drawing my attention to this link to a report
> published in the
> Leicester Mercury on 22 October 2007.
>
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
>
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874118
> 7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch
> <http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
>
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874118
> 7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch>
>
>

You sound surprised Stephen!
I first visited the "battlefield site" just after it opened in 1980
with a group of Yorkshire branch Ricardians who all thought me crazy
when I kept saying "No, not here. Not there! Stupid idea! It's all
wrong!" I went back on my own a few more times before I 'bumped
into' Peter Foss in 1983. Peter had already set out his Dadlington
theories in the local paper. I introduced him to the Yorkshire branch
folk who published the book setting out his ideas a year later.
The hoops the historian Danny Williams had jumped through after the
local council hired him to make the battle fit the only piece of land
in that area they'd been able to buy, were amazing, and anybody with
any idea about medieval battles only has to stand on Ambien Hill to
see that the site as set out there is just nonsense.
I'm really pleased they are at long last spending time and money
trying to get it right.
Or at least a lot closer to right!
Paul


On 13 Nov 2007, at 16:33, Stephen Lark wrote:

> So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on Ambion
> Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
> memorial
> stone stands!
>
> And probably it was Dadlington all along!

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I recall hearing years ago that no battle-type artefacts had been
found at the "battlefield site" but that there was a site a few
miles away where things kept turning up during ploughing. As with so
many things concerning Richard III, the myths seem to take root and
obscure the facts. (murder of the princes, hunchback, etc. etc.)

Richard G

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> You sound surprised Stephen!
> I first visited the "battlefield site" just after it opened in
1980
> with a group of Yorkshire branch Ricardians who all thought me
crazy
> when I kept saying "No, not here. Not there! Stupid idea! It's
all
> wrong!" I went back on my own a few more times before I 'bumped
> into' Peter Foss in 1983. Peter had already set out his
Dadlington
> theories in the local paper. I introduced him to the Yorkshire
branch
> folk who published the book setting out his ideas a year later.
> The hoops the historian Danny Williams had jumped through after
the
> local council hired him to make the battle fit the only piece of
land
> in that area they'd been able to buy, were amazing, and anybody
with
> any idea about medieval battles only has to stand on Ambien Hill
to
> see that the site as set out there is just nonsense.
> I'm really pleased they are at long last spending time and money
> trying to get it right.
> Or at least a lot closer to right!
> Paul
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2007, at 16:33, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on
Ambion
> > Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
> > memorial
> > stone stands!
> >
> > And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

This artefacts story is true, and no myth Richard.
The council originally tried to buy a tract of land on the plain
below Ambien, where, as you have read, artefacts have turned up on
more than one occasion, hence the interest of the council. (On the
hill the only thing to show up have been cannon balls dating from the
skirmish that took place there during the 'Great Rebellion' of the
17th century.) However Ambien Farm, situated on the hillside, was up
for sale, and it was bought up. The council (Leicestershire County
Council btw) then asked Danny Williams to write a history of the
battle to fit their site. Stand under Richard's banner and you can
spit on Henry Tudor's position and the so-called 'stone marks the
spot', so why fight when your archers can rain down on the enemy
without you or your men breaking a sweat? :-)
Paul


On 14 Nov 2007, at 10:35, rgcorris wrote:

> I recall hearing years ago that no battle-type artefacts had been
> found at the "battlefield site" but that there was a site a few
> miles away where things kept turning up during ploughing. As with so
> many things concerning Richard III, the myths seem to take root and
> obscure the facts. (murder of the princes, hunchback, etc. etc.)
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> You sound surprised Stephen!
>> I first visited the "battlefield site" just after it opened in
> 1980
>> with a group of Yorkshire branch Ricardians who all thought me
> crazy
>> when I kept saying "No, not here. Not there! Stupid idea! It's
> all
>> wrong!" I went back on my own a few more times before I 'bumped
>> into' Peter Foss in 1983. Peter had already set out his
> Dadlington
>> theories in the local paper. I introduced him to the Yorkshire
> branch
>> folk who published the book setting out his ideas a year later.
>> The hoops the historian Danny Williams had jumped through after
> the
>> local council hired him to make the battle fit the only piece of
> land
>> in that area they'd been able to buy, were amazing, and anybody
> with
>> any idea about medieval battles only has to stand on Ambien Hill
> to
>> see that the site as set out there is just nonsense.
>> I'm really pleased they are at long last spending time and money
>> trying to get it right.
>> Or at least a lot closer to right!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2007, at 16:33, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>>> So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on
> Ambion
>>> Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
>>> memorial
>>> stone stands!
>>>
>>> And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Here's another useful source. I've been tracking the issue for some
time and look forward to my next battlefield visit. That's easier
said than done since I live in Ohio!

If we knew what really happened at Bosworth, we could better
understand Richard, I think. It appears that the present research
is demonstrating that he wasn't brought low by treachery but by both
Oxford's leadership and the element of chance on the battlefield.

Bosworth didn't have to turn out the way it did, and neither did
Stoke, which easily could have gone against Henry VII.

http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-
centre/warsoftheroses/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=8


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> You sound surprised Stephen!
> I first visited the "battlefield site" just after it opened in
1980
> with a group of Yorkshire branch Ricardians who all thought me
crazy
> when I kept saying "No, not here. Not there! Stupid idea! It's
all
> wrong!" I went back on my own a few more times before I 'bumped
> into' Peter Foss in 1983. Peter had already set out his
Dadlington
> theories in the local paper. I introduced him to the Yorkshire
branch
> folk who published the book setting out his ideas a year later.
> The hoops the historian Danny Williams had jumped through after
the
> local council hired him to make the battle fit the only piece of
land
> in that area they'd been able to buy, were amazing, and anybody
with
> any idea about medieval battles only has to stand on Ambien Hill
to
> see that the site as set out there is just nonsense.
> I'm really pleased they are at long last spending time and money
> trying to get it right.
> Or at least a lot closer to right!
> Paul
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2007, at 16:33, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on
Ambion
> > Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
> > memorial
> > stone stands!
> >
> > And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

No matter where the marsh was, the intervention of William Stanley
definitely decided the battle in Henry's favour, as Richard's charge
had brought him close to Henry's person when Stanley brought in his men.
Oxford was indeed good at his job that day, if indeed he used the
marsh for one of his flanks, but the death of Norfolk at such a
crucial moment certainly helped. Would the king have led his
household in the charge has Norfolk not been killed? Why did he not
call up the reserve? Or did he, and Northumberland refuse so that he
could keep his eye on Thomas Stanley and prevent the elder Stanley's
intervention?
Of course, we don't actually know that Oxford deliberately used the
marsh, or that either he or King Richard was aware of it, or that
anybody that day knew of it, as it may well have not shown very
clearly. We do know that it had been a very hot summer, so any wet
ground may have dried up, at least on the surface. This perhaps could
have decided things by the king riding into the soft ground without
realising it was there, being unhorsed, and Stanley seeing this
decided him to intervene.
All are possibilities.
But treachery still played a major part, for without William
Stanley's intervention Richard would probably have achieved his
object, reached Tudor and engaged him in single combat. The king's
experience would without doubt have been enough to decide who won,
and my money would have been on Richard!
Paul



On 14 Nov 2007, at 13:36, yorkistjoe wrote:

> Here's another useful source. I've been tracking the issue for some
> time and look forward to my next battlefield visit. That's easier
> said than done since I live in Ohio!
>
> If we knew what really happened at Bosworth, we could better
> understand Richard, I think. It appears that the present research
> is demonstrating that he wasn't brought low by treachery but by both
> Oxford's leadership and the element of chance on the battlefield.
>
> Bosworth didn't have to turn out the way it did, and neither did
> Stoke, which easily could have gone against Henry VII.
>
> http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-
> centre/warsoftheroses/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=8
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> You sound surprised Stephen!
>> I first visited the "battlefield site" just after it opened in
> 1980
>> with a group of Yorkshire branch Ricardians who all thought me
> crazy
>> when I kept saying "No, not here. Not there! Stupid idea! It's
> all
>> wrong!" I went back on my own a few more times before I 'bumped
>> into' Peter Foss in 1983. Peter had already set out his
> Dadlington
>> theories in the local paper. I introduced him to the Yorkshire
> branch
>> folk who published the book setting out his ideas a year later.
>> The hoops the historian Danny Williams had jumped through after
> the
>> local council hired him to make the battle fit the only piece of
> land
>> in that area they'd been able to buy, were amazing, and anybody
> with
>> any idea about medieval battles only has to stand on Ambien Hill
> to
>> see that the site as set out there is just nonsense.
>> I'm really pleased they are at long last spending time and money
>> trying to get it right.
>> Or at least a lot closer to right!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2007, at 16:33, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>>> So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on
> Ambion
>>> Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
>>> memorial
>>> stone stands!
>>>
>>> And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I was on an American Branch Ricardian Tour and visited Dadlington
several years ago. I bought the little paperback book, read it and was
convinced this was the place!

I am glad the research has proven Foss to be basically correct. I, too, was
half-way convinced to begin with when I heard the site selected for Bosworth
Field was the only land the local farmers would sell. Sounded fishy to me!

Anyway, it would be nice to have it decided once and for all.



L.M.L.

Janet



Janet M. Trimbath

Yes Janet it will be good to have something at least a little more
convincing to tramp about!
The most convincing thing about Peter Foss' theories for me was the
simple fact that he had lived there most of his life, and knows the
area like the proverbial back of his hand!
I am eager to see what these developments come up with.
Paul


On 14 Nov 2007, at 14:37, Janet T. wrote:

> I was on an American Branch Ricardian Tour and visited Dadlington
> several years ago. I bought the little paperback book, read it and
> was
> convinced this was the place!
>
> I am glad the research has proven Foss to be basically correct. I,
> too, was
> half-way convinced to begin with when I heard the site selected for
> Bosworth
> Field was the only land the local farmers would sell. Sounded
> fishy to me!
>
> Anyway, it would be nice to have it decided once and for all.
>
>
>
> L.M.L.
>
> Janet
>
>
>
> Janet M. Trimbath
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Here's some more reading on the current state of Bosworth research:

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Bosworth.pdf


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> So Richard III never went to Sutton Cheney, never set foot on
Ambion
> Hill, never took a drink from that well, didn't die where that
memorial
> stone stands!
>
> And probably it was Dadlington all along!
>
> Thanks to Sally Henshaw, Secretary of the East Midlands Branch for
> drawing my attention to this link to a report published in the
> Leicester Mercury on 22 October 2007.
>
> http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
>
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874
118
> 7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch
> <http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?
>
nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=1874
118
> 7&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=filtersearch>
>