Hello, I'm new to this site.
Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-01 13:30:27
Hello,
I'm Kris and I'm new to this site. I live in Craig, Colorado which
is in the far, far NW corner of Colorado -- 60 miles from the middle
of nowhere -- as the crow flies.
I have gained an interest in the middle ages as I have looked at
information family members have given me about our geneology. As
usual, it is largly dates and one or two stories that can easily be
connected to contemporary people. So I found that I wanted to add
stories that belonged to people further back in time.
The people I know divide their lines in the family at the time two
brothers came to the US. So I've chosen to learn about the people
and the times of those two brothers and go back from the time before
they came to the US. Therefore I start my family story in Surrey in
1603.
(I've even been checking the female side of the line and that is
where lots of interesting stories come from. Of course females were
often pawns of politics -- but being pawns, they often saw several
sides of alliances and deals and introduced interesting people and
places and events into the narrative. Ah! The women were the not
just the pawns of history, but brought the color and the vibrancy to
many stories!)
This search into medevial British has been fascinating to me. I
always assumed that we were peasants. But we were minor gentry. So
I'd like to find out more the period.
Lo and behold, we were around during Richard III's reign and before.
So I've been reading about the York/Tudor periods to get an idea of
what they were like.
So I'll say up front -- I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen would
allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at the
Tower.)
Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting and
about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of Alderidge
and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge and
the people in the villages around the battle site?
Thank you,
Kris
I'm Kris and I'm new to this site. I live in Craig, Colorado which
is in the far, far NW corner of Colorado -- 60 miles from the middle
of nowhere -- as the crow flies.
I have gained an interest in the middle ages as I have looked at
information family members have given me about our geneology. As
usual, it is largly dates and one or two stories that can easily be
connected to contemporary people. So I found that I wanted to add
stories that belonged to people further back in time.
The people I know divide their lines in the family at the time two
brothers came to the US. So I've chosen to learn about the people
and the times of those two brothers and go back from the time before
they came to the US. Therefore I start my family story in Surrey in
1603.
(I've even been checking the female side of the line and that is
where lots of interesting stories come from. Of course females were
often pawns of politics -- but being pawns, they often saw several
sides of alliances and deals and introduced interesting people and
places and events into the narrative. Ah! The women were the not
just the pawns of history, but brought the color and the vibrancy to
many stories!)
This search into medevial British has been fascinating to me. I
always assumed that we were peasants. But we were minor gentry. So
I'd like to find out more the period.
Lo and behold, we were around during Richard III's reign and before.
So I've been reading about the York/Tudor periods to get an idea of
what they were like.
So I'll say up front -- I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen would
allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at the
Tower.)
Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting and
about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of Alderidge
and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge and
the people in the villages around the battle site?
Thank you,
Kris
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-01 21:43:24
--- In , griffinwhippet
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm Kris and I'm new to this site. I live in Craig, Colorado which
> is in the far, far NW corner of Colorado -- 60 miles from the
middle
> of nowhere -- as the crow flies.
>
> I have gained an interest in the middle ages as I have looked at
> information family members have given me about our geneology. As
> usual, it is largly dates and one or two stories that can easily be
> connected to contemporary people. So I found that I wanted to add
> stories that belonged to people further back in time.
>
> The people I know divide their lines in the family at the time two
> brothers came to the US. So I've chosen to learn about the people
> and the times of those two brothers and go back from the time
before
> they came to the US. Therefore I start my family story in Surrey
in
> 1603.
>
> (I've even been checking the female side of the line and that is
> where lots of interesting stories come from. Of course females
were
> often pawns of politics -- but being pawns, they often saw several
> sides of alliances and deals and introduced interesting people and
> places and events into the narrative. Ah! The women were the not
> just the pawns of history, but brought the color and the vibrancy
to
> many stories!)
>
> This search into medevial British has been fascinating to me. I
> always assumed that we were peasants. But we were minor gentry.
So
> I'd like to find out more the period.
>
> Lo and behold, we were around during Richard III's reign and
before.
> So I've been reading about the York/Tudor periods to get an idea of
> what they were like.
>
> So I'll say up front -- I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
would
> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
the
> Tower.)
>
> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
and
> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
Alderidge
> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
and
> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kris
>
Kris, I know nothing of "Alderidge" still less of an Earl but that
can be validated. There is a town of Aldridge in Walsall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldridge) but this is about fifty miles
west of Bosworth (wherever that may prove to be).
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm Kris and I'm new to this site. I live in Craig, Colorado which
> is in the far, far NW corner of Colorado -- 60 miles from the
middle
> of nowhere -- as the crow flies.
>
> I have gained an interest in the middle ages as I have looked at
> information family members have given me about our geneology. As
> usual, it is largly dates and one or two stories that can easily be
> connected to contemporary people. So I found that I wanted to add
> stories that belonged to people further back in time.
>
> The people I know divide their lines in the family at the time two
> brothers came to the US. So I've chosen to learn about the people
> and the times of those two brothers and go back from the time
before
> they came to the US. Therefore I start my family story in Surrey
in
> 1603.
>
> (I've even been checking the female side of the line and that is
> where lots of interesting stories come from. Of course females
were
> often pawns of politics -- but being pawns, they often saw several
> sides of alliances and deals and introduced interesting people and
> places and events into the narrative. Ah! The women were the not
> just the pawns of history, but brought the color and the vibrancy
to
> many stories!)
>
> This search into medevial British has been fascinating to me. I
> always assumed that we were peasants. But we were minor gentry.
So
> I'd like to find out more the period.
>
> Lo and behold, we were around during Richard III's reign and
before.
> So I've been reading about the York/Tudor periods to get an idea of
> what they were like.
>
> So I'll say up front -- I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
would
> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
the
> Tower.)
>
> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
and
> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
Alderidge
> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
and
> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kris
>
Kris, I know nothing of "Alderidge" still less of an Earl but that
can be validated. There is a town of Aldridge in Walsall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldridge) but this is about fifty miles
west of Bosworth (wherever that may prove to be).
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-01 23:18:41
On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen would
> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at the
> Tower.
I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
million years!!
As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at the
Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos bones
in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>
> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting and
> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of Alderidge
> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge and
> the people in the villages around the battle site?
Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard of
a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting between
Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
Sorry not to be more helpful
Paul <mere English :-) >
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and everyone
> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen would
> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at the
> Tower.
I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
million years!!
As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at the
Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos bones
in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>
> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting and
> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of Alderidge
> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What would
> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge and
> the people in the villages around the battle site?
Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard of
a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting between
Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
Sorry not to be more helpful
Paul <mere English :-) >
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-02 01:23:51
Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family geneology
charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more specifics
than what they have on their web site.
I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as to
his story and his part at Bosworth.
Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who he
supported and what his role in the entire story was.
By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to figure
it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
just play both sides!
Kris
paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>
>
> > I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> > consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
everyone
> > else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
would
> > allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
the
> > Tower.
> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> million years!!
> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
the
> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
bones
> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>
> >
> > Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> > Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
and
> > about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
Alderidge
> > and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
would
> > have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
and
> > the people in the villages around the battle site?
>
>
> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard
of
> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
between
> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> Sorry not to be more helpful
> Paul <mere English :-) >
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more specifics
than what they have on their web site.
I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as to
his story and his part at Bosworth.
Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who he
supported and what his role in the entire story was.
By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to figure
it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
just play both sides!
Kris
paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>
>
> > I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> > consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
everyone
> > else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
would
> > allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
the
> > Tower.
> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> million years!!
> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
the
> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
bones
> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>
> >
> > Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
> > Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
and
> > about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
Alderidge
> > and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
would
> > have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
and
> > the people in the villages around the battle site?
>
>
> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard
of
> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
between
> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> Sorry not to be more helpful
> Paul <mere English :-) >
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-02 10:56:16
--- In , griffinwhippet
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
geneology
> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
married
> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>
> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
specifics
> than what they have on their web site.
>
> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
to
> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>
> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
he
> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>
> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
figure
> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> just play both sides!
>
> Kris
>
>
> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> > > consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> everyone
> > > else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> would
> > > allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
at
> the
> > > Tower.
> > I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> > million years!!
> > As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> the
> > Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> > which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> bones
> > in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >
> > >
> > > Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
in
> > > Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
meeting
> and
> > > about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> Alderidge
> > > and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> would
> > > have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
Alderidge
> and
> > > the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >
> >
> > Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
heard
> of
> > a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> between
> > Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> > Sorry not to be more helpful
> > Paul <mere English :-) >
> >
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>
Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
but I have a few reliable sources to check.
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
geneology
> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
married
> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>
> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
specifics
> than what they have on their web site.
>
> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
to
> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>
> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
he
> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>
> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
figure
> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> just play both sides!
>
> Kris
>
>
> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> > > consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> everyone
> > > else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> would
> > > allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
at
> the
> > > Tower.
> > I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> > million years!!
> > As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> the
> > Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> > which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> bones
> > in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >
> > >
> > > Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
in
> > > Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
meeting
> and
> > > about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> Alderidge
> > > and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> would
> > > have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
Alderidge
> and
> > > the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >
> >
> > Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
heard
> of
> > a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> between
> > Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> > Sorry not to be more helpful
> > Paul <mere English :-) >
> >
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>
Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
but I have a few reliable sources to check.
Re: Status of Atherstone, WAS Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-02 13:33:38
Earldoms generally involve quite large areas (usually counties) or
significant places, rather that small towns like Atherstone. Thomas Foster
may well have been big in Atherstone, but it would be more likely that he
was a knight or baron rather than an earl.
I should add that some earldoms seem off the map - Clarence and Montagu
come to mind. I know the most obvious holders of these titles were a duke
and a marquis, but earls were top dog under the king pre-conquest and many
dukedoms started off as earldoms. And was Edward, when Earl of March,
connected to the Welsh/Scottish marches, or the place in Cambridgeshire?
I see that these days Atherstone has a town council and is the in local
government district of North Warwickshire, and the Town Clerk is a Mr
Foster....
At 01:23 02/12/2007, you wrote:
>Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family geneology
>charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
>Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
Best wishes
Christine
Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by Carole
Cadwalladr
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
significant places, rather that small towns like Atherstone. Thomas Foster
may well have been big in Atherstone, but it would be more likely that he
was a knight or baron rather than an earl.
I should add that some earldoms seem off the map - Clarence and Montagu
come to mind. I know the most obvious holders of these titles were a duke
and a marquis, but earls were top dog under the king pre-conquest and many
dukedoms started off as earldoms. And was Edward, when Earl of March,
connected to the Welsh/Scottish marches, or the place in Cambridgeshire?
I see that these days Atherstone has a town council and is the in local
government district of North Warwickshire, and the Town Clerk is a Mr
Foster....
At 01:23 02/12/2007, you wrote:
>Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family geneology
>charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
>Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
Best wishes
Christine
Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by Carole
Cadwalladr
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-02 14:38:16
Never heard of an Earl of Atherstone. Anyone else know? Genealogy
isn't my interest. Bambrugh Castle you mean? If so a connection with
Northumberland makes that interesting.
Henry VII was born guilty, and ignoring the case you mentioned Henry
'legally' killed as many Plantagenets as he could, leaving the few
remaining to his lovely son fat Hank to dispose of.
Good luck in the hunt for your ancestors!
Paul
On 2 Dec 2007, at 01:23, griffinwhippet wrote:
> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family geneology
> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>
> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more specifics
> than what they have on their web site.
>
> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as to
> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>
> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who he
> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>
> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to figure
> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> just play both sides!
>
> Kris
>
>
> paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> everyone
>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> would
>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
> the
>>> Tower.
>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
>> million years!!
>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> the
>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> bones
>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>>
>>>
>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
> and
>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> Alderidge
>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> would
>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
> and
>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>>
>>
>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard
> of
>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> between
>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
>> Sorry not to be more helpful
>> Paul <mere English :-) >
>>
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
isn't my interest. Bambrugh Castle you mean? If so a connection with
Northumberland makes that interesting.
Henry VII was born guilty, and ignoring the case you mentioned Henry
'legally' killed as many Plantagenets as he could, leaving the few
remaining to his lovely son fat Hank to dispose of.
Good luck in the hunt for your ancestors!
Paul
On 2 Dec 2007, at 01:23, griffinwhippet wrote:
> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family geneology
> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he married
> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>
> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more specifics
> than what they have on their web site.
>
> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as to
> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>
> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who he
> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>
> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to figure
> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> just play both sides!
>
> Kris
>
>
> paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> everyone
>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> would
>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found at
> the
>>> Tower.
>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
>> million years!!
>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> the
>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> bones
>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>>
>>>
>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met in
>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that meeting
> and
>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> Alderidge
>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> would
>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of Alderidge
> and
>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>>
>>
>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never heard
> of
>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> between
>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
>> Sorry not to be more helpful
>> Paul <mere English :-) >
>>
>>
>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-02 14:48:39
Atherstone is where Michael Jones places the battle field. In my
opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part in
the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it, so
something happened there.
Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days after
the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle may
be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom said
anyway? :-)
Paul
On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
> --- In , griffinwhippet
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> geneology
>> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> married
>> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>>
>> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
>> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> specifics
>> than what they have on their web site.
>>
>> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> to
>> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>>
>> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> he
>> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>>
>> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> figure
>> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
>> just play both sides!
>>
>> Kris
>>
>>
>> paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
>>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
>> everyone
>>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
>> would
>>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> at
>> the
>>>> Tower.
>>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
>>> million years!!
>>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
>> the
>>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
>>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
>> bones
>>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> in
>>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> meeting
>> and
>>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
>> Alderidge
>>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
>> would
>>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> Alderidge
>> and
>>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> heard
>> of
>>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
>> between
>>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
>>> Sorry not to be more helpful
>>> Paul <mere English :-) >
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>>
>>
> Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> but I have a few reliable sources to check.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part in
the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it, so
something happened there.
Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days after
the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle may
be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom said
anyway? :-)
Paul
On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
> --- In , griffinwhippet
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> geneology
>> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> married
>> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
>>
>> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
>> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> specifics
>> than what they have on their web site.
>>
>> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> to
>> his story and his part at Bosworth.
>>
>> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> he
>> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
>>
>> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> figure
>> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
>> just play both sides!
>>
>> Kris
>>
>>
>> paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
>>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
>> everyone
>>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
>> would
>>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> at
>> the
>>>> Tower.
>>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
>>> million years!!
>>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
>> the
>>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
>>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
>> bones
>>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> in
>>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> meeting
>> and
>>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
>> Alderidge
>>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
>> would
>>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> Alderidge
>> and
>>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> heard
>> of
>>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
>> between
>>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
>>> Sorry not to be more helpful
>>> Paul <mere English :-) >
>>>
>>>
>>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>>>
>>
> Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> but I have a few reliable sources to check.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
"Richard Liveth Yet!"
Re: Atherstone [Richard III Society Forum] Hello, I'm new to this si
2007-12-02 15:05:58
From the Wikipedia entry for Atherstone -
"It is said that the Battle of Bosworth actually took place in the
fields of Merevale above Atherstone. Certainly reparation was made to
Atherstone after the battle, and not to Market Bosworth."
No mention of an earldom or other lordship though.
Richard G
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Atherstone is where Michael Jones places the battle field. In my
> opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part in
> the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it,
> so something happened there.
> Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days after
> the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle may
> be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
> more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom said
> anyway? :-)
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > --- In , griffinwhippet
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> > geneology
> >> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> > married
> >> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
> >>
> >> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> >> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> > specifics
> >> than what they have on their web site.
> >>
> >> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> > to
> >> his story and his part at Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> > he
> >> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
> >>
> >> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> > figure
> >> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> >> just play both sides!
> >>
> >> Kris
> >>
> >>
> >> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> >>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> >> everyone
> >>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> >> would
> >>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> > at
> >> the
> >>>> Tower.
> >>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> >>> million years!!
> >>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> >> the
> >>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> >>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> >> bones
> >>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> > in
> >>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> > meeting
> >> and
> >>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> >> Alderidge
> >>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> >> would
> >>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> > Alderidge
> >> and
> >>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> > heard
> >> of
> >>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> >> between
> >>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> >>> Sorry not to be more helpful
> >>> Paul <mere English :-) >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >>>
> >>
> > Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> > battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> > but I have a few reliable sources to check.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
"It is said that the Battle of Bosworth actually took place in the
fields of Merevale above Atherstone. Certainly reparation was made to
Atherstone after the battle, and not to Market Bosworth."
No mention of an earldom or other lordship though.
Richard G
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Atherstone is where Michael Jones places the battle field. In my
> opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part in
> the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it,
> so something happened there.
> Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days after
> the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle may
> be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
> more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom said
> anyway? :-)
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > --- In , griffinwhippet
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> > geneology
> >> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> > married
> >> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
> >>
> >> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> >> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> > specifics
> >> than what they have on their web site.
> >>
> >> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> > to
> >> his story and his part at Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> > he
> >> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
> >>
> >> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> > figure
> >> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US, I'll
> >> just play both sides!
> >>
> >> Kris
> >>
> >>
> >> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> >>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> >> everyone
> >>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> >> would
> >>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> > at
> >> the
> >>>> Tower.
> >>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> >>> million years!!
> >>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> >> the
> >>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> >>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> >> bones
> >>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> > in
> >>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> > meeting
> >> and
> >>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> >> Alderidge
> >>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> >> would
> >>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> > Alderidge
> >> and
> >>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> > heard
> >> of
> >>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> >> between
> >>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> >>> Sorry not to be more helpful
> >>> Paul <mere English :-) >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >>>
> >>
> > Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> > battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> > but I have a few reliable sources to check.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
Re: Hello, I'm new to this site.
2007-12-03 12:41:48
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Atherstone is where Michael Jones places the battle field. In my
> opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part
in
> the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it,
so
> something happened there.
> Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days
after
> the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle
may
> be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
> more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom
said
> anyway? :-)
> Paul
Atherstone (or just east of) is actually my favoured site. Since
Ambien Hill is baseless folklore, as all are apparently now agreed, I
can't see what relevance proximity to it has.
The evidence is not clearcut, but there's no getting away from the
fact that Crowland, who appears to have been in Leicester when the
battle was fought, refers to the battle as Merevale (the abbey south
of Atherstone where Jones believes Tudor spent his last night); also
that Henry compensated Atherstone and four other villages to the N
and E of it for damage to crops caused at the battle (not to or from
the battle). Jones' site also has a sandy ford, probably associated
with a marsh. Thr Dadlington site has, as I understand it, turned up
almost nothing in the way of archaeology. Really, the site where
Jones places Richard's death is not far at all from the western limit
of the Dadlington site. It is worth bearing this in mind as Jones'
site is often inaccuratley portrayed as being miles off from the
other two runners.
To summarise for new members. Dadlington has in favour of it the fact
that 40 burials from the battle were found in the churchyard and that
an old document refers to a few roods of land in Redesmore in the
arish of Dadlington. Redesmore was the other early favoured name for
the battle. Jones argues that the burials in Dadlington church are of
Tudor's men, and they were placed there because Dadlington was the
first church they would have passed as they rode from the battle
towards Leicester. The Redesmre reference in also puzzling. The area
referred to in the document is barely more than the size of a back
garden, whereas the feature that gave its name to the battle must
have been of a significant size. Did Redesmore extent beyond the
parish of Dafdlington?
Unfortunately, the current archaeological team have not investigated
Jones' site. An objection to it formerly raised was that it had
included a significant amount of ridge and furrow, which is
unsuitable for cavalry, whereas Vergil and later tradition insist
that Richard made a cavalry charge. The archaeology on the Dadlington
site has, however, found - not surprisingly - that 90% of that site
was ridge and furrow. Vergil's cavalry charge is now seriously
questioned. His battle scenario is apparently based on classical
Roman models, and cavalry was virtually never used during the Wars of
the Roses.
Proving there was a marsh at Dadlington doesn't, for me, prove this
is where the battle was fought. The last time I had an update the
idea was that it had been encountering this that caused Tudor's army
to turn off the road and face Richard's force. Had there been another
marsh encountered on the road from Merevale, before Dadlington, one
would need an explanation for why that had not had the same effect on
the movements of the tudor army.
money going.
Marie
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > --- In , griffinwhippet
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> > geneology
> >> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> > married
> >> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
> >>
> >> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> >> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> > specifics
> >> than what they have on their web site.
> >>
> >> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> > to
> >> his story and his part at Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> > he
> >> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
> >>
> >> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> > figure
> >> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US,
I'll
> >> just play both sides!
> >>
> >> Kris
> >>
> >>
> >> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> >>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> >> everyone
> >>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> >> would
> >>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> > at
> >> the
> >>>> Tower.
> >>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> >>> million years!!
> >>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> >> the
> >>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> >>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> >> bones
> >>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> > in
> >>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> > meeting
> >> and
> >>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> >> Alderidge
> >>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> >> would
> >>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> > Alderidge
> >> and
> >>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> > heard
> >> of
> >>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> >> between
> >>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> >>> Sorry not to be more helpful
> >>> Paul <mere English :-) >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >>>
> >>
> > Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> > battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> > but I have a few reliable sources to check.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Atherstone is where Michael Jones places the battle field. In my
> opinion too far from Ambien for the hill to have played any part
in
> the action, before, during, or after, and all accounts mention it,
so
> something happened there.
> Thomas Stanley says he didn't meet his stepson until two days
after
> the battle, so his creeping over to Atherstone before the battle
may
> be just folk lore, or a later attempt by him to make himself look
> more Tudor loyal. But of course, who can believe anything Thom
said
> anyway? :-)
> Paul
Atherstone (or just east of) is actually my favoured site. Since
Ambien Hill is baseless folklore, as all are apparently now agreed, I
can't see what relevance proximity to it has.
The evidence is not clearcut, but there's no getting away from the
fact that Crowland, who appears to have been in Leicester when the
battle was fought, refers to the battle as Merevale (the abbey south
of Atherstone where Jones believes Tudor spent his last night); also
that Henry compensated Atherstone and four other villages to the N
and E of it for damage to crops caused at the battle (not to or from
the battle). Jones' site also has a sandy ford, probably associated
with a marsh. Thr Dadlington site has, as I understand it, turned up
almost nothing in the way of archaeology. Really, the site where
Jones places Richard's death is not far at all from the western limit
of the Dadlington site. It is worth bearing this in mind as Jones'
site is often inaccuratley portrayed as being miles off from the
other two runners.
To summarise for new members. Dadlington has in favour of it the fact
that 40 burials from the battle were found in the churchyard and that
an old document refers to a few roods of land in Redesmore in the
arish of Dadlington. Redesmore was the other early favoured name for
the battle. Jones argues that the burials in Dadlington church are of
Tudor's men, and they were placed there because Dadlington was the
first church they would have passed as they rode from the battle
towards Leicester. The Redesmre reference in also puzzling. The area
referred to in the document is barely more than the size of a back
garden, whereas the feature that gave its name to the battle must
have been of a significant size. Did Redesmore extent beyond the
parish of Dafdlington?
Unfortunately, the current archaeological team have not investigated
Jones' site. An objection to it formerly raised was that it had
included a significant amount of ridge and furrow, which is
unsuitable for cavalry, whereas Vergil and later tradition insist
that Richard made a cavalry charge. The archaeology on the Dadlington
site has, however, found - not surprisingly - that 90% of that site
was ridge and furrow. Vergil's cavalry charge is now seriously
questioned. His battle scenario is apparently based on classical
Roman models, and cavalry was virtually never used during the Wars of
the Roses.
Proving there was a marsh at Dadlington doesn't, for me, prove this
is where the battle was fought. The last time I had an update the
idea was that it had been encountering this that caused Tudor's army
to turn off the road and face Richard's force. Had there been another
marsh encountered on the road from Merevale, before Dadlington, one
would need an explanation for why that had not had the same effect on
the movements of the tudor army.
money going.
Marie
>
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2007, at 10:56, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > --- In , griffinwhippet
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I mean Atherstone. It is my understanding from family
> > geneology
> >> charts that Thomas Foster was Earl of Atherstone and that he
> > married
> >> Elizabeth Featherstonehaugh of Banbaugh Castle.
> >>
> >> I know that the Foster (Forrester) family were the governers of
> >> Banbaugh Castle, but I haven't yet contacted them for more
> > specifics
> >> than what they have on their web site.
> >>
> >> I know nothing about Thomas Foster of Atherstone. I'm curious as
> > to
> >> his story and his part at Bosworth.
> >>
> >> Records show that he did not die until 1510, but I don't know who
> > he
> >> supported and what his role in the entire story was.
> >>
> >> By the way -- I'll consider everyone innocent. I've tried to
> > figure
> >> it out and can't. So since it is political season in the US,
I'll
> >> just play both sides!
> >>
> >> Kris
> >>
> >>
> >> paultrevor@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1 Dec 2007, at 13:30, griffinwhippet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take a purely American viewpoint and
> >>>> consider Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Buckingham and
> >> everyone
> >>>> else innocent until proven guilty and just wish that the Queen
> >> would
> >>>> allow a DNA testing on the remains of the two young boys found
> > at
> >> the
> >>>> Tower.
> >>> I'll wish you welcome Kris but....Henry VII innocent/ Not in a
> >>> million years!!
> >>> As for the DNA testing of the remains of two young boys found at
> >> the
> >>> Tower, DNA testing would be needed to prove the sex of the bones
> >>> which was not done in the 1930s - if you are referring to thos
> >> bones
> >>> in the urn in the Abbey :-) what else?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just before the battle of Bosworth, Henry and the Stanleys met
> > in
> >>>> Alderidge for a meeting. What can you tell me about that
> > meeting
> >> and
> >>>> about Alderidge the town? Was a Thomas Foster the Earl of
> >> Alderidge
> >>>> and if so, what would have been his role in the battle? What
> >> would
> >>>> have the aftermath of the battle been on the people of
> > Alderidge
> >> and
> >>>> the people in the villages around the battle site?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are you certain of the spelling of this name as I have never
> > heard
> >> of
> >>> a village named Aldridge, nor of an Earl. Nor of any meeting
> >> between
> >>> Henry and the Stanleys except the possible one at Atherstone.
> >>> Sorry not to be more helpful
> >>> Paul <mere English :-) >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >>>
> >>
> > Atherstone? Now I know of that and it is much closer to the
> > battlefield options than Walsall. I still don;t know about an Earl
> > but I have a few reliable sources to check.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.