Richard III's Heir

Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?

I remember reading that he had and I thought it was Buckingham but I must double check this.
EM
.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Post your ad for free now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

Yes, he toyed with the idea of the earl of Warwick but decided against that because of his father, Clarence's, attainder and possibly because the boy may have been simple. He designated John, Earl of Lincoln, his nephew (son of the Duke of Suffolk) as his heir.
----- Original Message -----
From: lht1187
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: Richard III's Heir


Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I hear that the BBC "Two Men in a Trench" program will be featuring the
Battle of Barnet soon. A non-member enthusiast by the name of Martin
Reboul, who used to live near the battle site, took the research team for
the program around the battle site and gave them a write-up of his own
interpretations of the evidence.

In anticipation of this segment airing, he placed his article on the
newsgroup soc.history.medieval, and has also agreed to let me put it up on
our r3.org website. Some or all of it may also be printed in the American
Branch newsletter depending on space available.

Reboul is hoping that this publication of his Barnet theories will spark a
lively discussion. He isn't exactly Richard's best friend -- he considers
my brand of sympathetic agnosticism to be raving revisionism -- but we've
long ago agreed to disagree on Ricardian convictions. For Reboul, his
commentary on Richard's reign at the end of the article is remarkably
tactful.

I hope that you'll find it interesting. The URL is

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/reboul_barnet.html

He stresses that this is a work in progress and that he welcomes comments
and criticisms of all kinds. His e-mail address is given at the end of the
article, or you can discuss it here or on soc.history.medieval.


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Richard III never named any specific heir in public. Given his age
and the subsequent death of his wife he would widely have been
expected to remarry and produce his own heir (he was only in his
early 30's). Certainly Lincoln was appointed to positions that might
have suggested to some observers that he was been groomed in ways
that indicated a preference by Richard in the event of his own death,
but no public proclamation or Act of Parliament was ever produced.

Had Richard been succeeded by Lincoln you could argue that there
would have been further dynastic conflict. The Earl of Warwick was
the senior heir male and his sister Margaret came after him (assuming
you exclude the daughters of Edward IV). If you exclude them on the
rather dodgy grounds of their father's attainder (which only excluded
Warwick from the title of Duke) then the next senior heir was the
young Anne St Leger daughter of Edward IV's eldest sister. John de
la Pole's mother may have been willing to do "a margaret beaufort"
and resign her position to her son but it's wishful thinking that
John de la Pole would have succeeded without trouble.


--- In @y..., "Neil Trump" <neil.trump@b...>
wrote:
> Yes, he toyed with the idea of the earl of Warwick but decided
against that because of his father, Clarence's, attainder and
possibly because the boy may have been simple. He designated John,
Earl of Lincoln, his nephew (son of the Duke of Suffolk) as his heir.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lht1187
> To: @y...
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:03 PM
> Subject: Richard III's Heir
>
>
> Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> -unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>

Hello, all you lucky English folk. I hear the Two Men in a Trench episode
on Barnet will air tonight, "in ninety minutes" says my friend Martin
Reboul, who just emailed me.

I hope you guys will watch it, read Martin's article with his various
theories, and comment.

Martin's article is online at

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/reboul_barnet.html

Don't know where else it will air.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Tim

I have to disagree with you. Following the death of Edward of
Middleham there was no obvious heir and it was entirely normal
practice for a king in such a position to nominate an heir pending
the birth of a son. There are abundant precedents. Richard was indeed
only 32 at his wife's death, but necessarily a second marriage would
take time to arrange (not least because there were other pressing
matters in the summer of 1485) and there would then be further delays
before it produced issue. He does not seem to have designated an
heir, but to do so would have been entirely realistic.

At the time the royal succession was not fully based on primogeniture
and, in particular, the position of women was unclear. No woman had
ever reigned in England, and the only one who tried (Matilda) never
established herself on the throne. I have recently been doing some
research into queens regnant on the continent, and it is clear that a
woman would only succeed unchallenged when there were literally no
legitimate male heirs.

Edward of Warwick was the heir male, but if he were Richard's heir,
why was he not king already? That would take some explaining. And if
he was indeed simple-minded that was an eminently good reason for
passing him over.

Ann


--- In @y..., tmc_dale <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> Richard III never named any specific heir in public. Given his age
> and the subsequent death of his wife he would widely have been
> expected to remarry and produce his own heir (he was only in his
> early 30's). Certainly Lincoln was appointed to positions that
might
> have suggested to some observers that he was been groomed in ways
> that indicated a preference by Richard in the event of his own
death,
> but no public proclamation or Act of Parliament was ever produced.
>
> Had Richard been succeeded by Lincoln you could argue that there
> would have been further dynastic conflict. The Earl of Warwick was
> the senior heir male and his sister Margaret came after him
(assuming
> you exclude the daughters of Edward IV). If you exclude them on the
> rather dodgy grounds of their father's attainder (which only
excluded
> Warwick from the title of Duke) then the next senior heir was the
> young Anne St Leger daughter of Edward IV's eldest sister. John de
> la Pole's mother may have been willing to do "a margaret beaufort"
> and resign her position to her son but it's wishful thinking that
> John de la Pole would have succeeded without trouble.
>
>
> --- In @y..., "Neil Trump" <neil.trump@b...>
> wrote:
> > Yes, he toyed with the idea of the earl of Warwick but decided
> against that because of his father, Clarence's, attainder and
> possibly because the boy may have been simple. He designated John,
> Earl of Lincoln, his nephew (son of the Duke of Suffolk) as his
heir.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lht1187
> > To: @y...
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:03 PM
> > Subject: Richard III's Heir
> >
> >
> > Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > -unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >

Actually there aren't abundant precedants - Richard II did nominate
an heir but he was one of very few monarchs in English history to do
so when they had no heir of their body (most of the monarchs from the
Conquest onwards had an obvious male heir). Stephen only nominated
an heir to end years of civil war as did Henry VI when it was agreed
that Richard Duke of York should succeed him (which in itself was
never meant to stick anyway).
Succession in medieval England wasn't specific but primogeniture was
widely accepted as the usual practice - From Henry II until Richard
II male primogeniture was practiced with only one interruption - the
succession of John to Richard I in preference to the senior heir
Arthur of Brittany.
The clarity of female rights to pass succession wasn't firmed up but
given that both the York Plantagenet claim was based upon it and that
the English claim to the French throne was based upon it it was
accepted as possible.

As to Warwick the evidence for his simple mind post dates his long
imprisonment and it's debatable whether his isolation from early
youth to his eventual death has more to do with it than anything.
Certainly Richard couldn't name him without making his own claim even
more dodgy than it already was, but Lincoln was even more of a
difficulty. Hence no-one was named. I'd argue that in late 1484,
early 1485 Richard was probably at his strongest politically and that
anyone putting bets on whether he'd survive any threat in the short
term would have backed him - even Elizabeth Wydeville accepted that
in the short term she had to put up with him.


--- In @y..., aelyon2001 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Tim
>
> I have to disagree with you. Following the death of Edward of
> Middleham there was no obvious heir and it was entirely normal
> practice for a king in such a position to nominate an heir pending
> the birth of a son. There are abundant precedents. Richard was
indeed
> only 32 at his wife's death, but necessarily a second marriage
would
> take time to arrange (not least because there were other pressing
> matters in the summer of 1485) and there would then be further
delays
> before it produced issue. He does not seem to have designated an
> heir, but to do so would have been entirely realistic.
>
> At the time the royal succession was not fully based on
primogeniture
> and, in particular, the position of women was unclear. No woman had
> ever reigned in England, and the only one who tried (Matilda) never
> established herself on the throne. I have recently been doing some
> research into queens regnant on the continent, and it is clear that
a
> woman would only succeed unchallenged when there were literally no
> legitimate male heirs.
>
> Edward of Warwick was the heir male, but if he were Richard's heir,
> why was he not king already? That would take some explaining. And
if
> he was indeed simple-minded that was an eminently good reason for
> passing him over.
>
> Ann
>
>
> --- In @y..., tmc_dale <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Richard III never named any specific heir in public. Given his
age
> > and the subsequent death of his wife he would widely have been
> > expected to remarry and produce his own heir (he was only in his
> > early 30's). Certainly Lincoln was appointed to positions that
> might
> > have suggested to some observers that he was been groomed in ways
> > that indicated a preference by Richard in the event of his own
> death,
> > but no public proclamation or Act of Parliament was ever produced.
> >
> > Had Richard been succeeded by Lincoln you could argue that there
> > would have been further dynastic conflict. The Earl of Warwick
was
> > the senior heir male and his sister Margaret came after him
> (assuming
> > you exclude the daughters of Edward IV). If you exclude them on
the
> > rather dodgy grounds of their father's attainder (which only
> excluded
> > Warwick from the title of Duke) then the next senior heir was the
> > young Anne St Leger daughter of Edward IV's eldest sister. John
de
> > la Pole's mother may have been willing to do "a margaret
beaufort"
> > and resign her position to her son but it's wishful thinking that
> > John de la Pole would have succeeded without trouble.
> >
> >
> > --- In @y..., "Neil Trump"
<neil.trump@b...>
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, he toyed with the idea of the earl of Warwick but decided
> > against that because of his father, Clarence's, attainder and
> > possibly because the boy may have been simple. He designated
John,
> > Earl of Lincoln, his nephew (son of the Duke of Suffolk) as his
> heir.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: lht1187
> > > To: @y...
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:03 PM
> > > Subject: Richard III's Heir
> > >
> > >
> > > Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > -unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Tim

In referring to 'abundant' precedents I was including non-English
precedents - you are entirely right that the majority of English
kings did have male heirs of the body and therefore no need to name
an heir. In particular, on 5 February 1284, following the deaths of
both his sons, Alexander III of Scotland named his granddaughter,
Margaret of Norway, his only surviving descendant, as his heir
pending the births of further issue of his body. He remarried in
November 1285, but was killed in March 1286 without further issue.
Then in December 1318, following the death of his last surviving
brother, Edward, Robert Bruce named his grandson, the future Robert
II as his heir, again in default of a son, though the future David II
was born in 1324.

You are also right that succession THROUGH females was accepted in
England by then, but the succession OF females was, I think, quite a
different matter.

Ann



--- In @y..., tmc_dale <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> Actually there aren't abundant precedants - Richard II did nominate
> an heir but he was one of very few monarchs in English history to
do
> so when they had no heir of their body (most of the monarchs from
the
> Conquest onwards had an obvious male heir). Stephen only nominated
> an heir to end years of civil war as did Henry VI when it was
agreed
> that Richard Duke of York should succeed him (which in itself was
> never meant to stick anyway).
> Succession in medieval England wasn't specific but primogeniture
was
> widely accepted as the usual practice - From Henry II until Richard
> II male primogeniture was practiced with only one interruption -
the
> succession of John to Richard I in preference to the senior heir
> Arthur of Brittany.
> The clarity of female rights to pass succession wasn't firmed up
but
> given that both the York Plantagenet claim was based upon it and
that
> the English claim to the French throne was based upon it it was
> accepted as possible.
>
> As to Warwick the evidence for his simple mind post dates his long
> imprisonment and it's debatable whether his isolation from early
> youth to his eventual death has more to do with it than anything.
> Certainly Richard couldn't name him without making his own claim
even
> more dodgy than it already was, but Lincoln was even more of a
> difficulty. Hence no-one was named. I'd argue that in late 1484,
> early 1485 Richard was probably at his strongest politically and
that
> anyone putting bets on whether he'd survive any threat in the short
> term would have backed him - even Elizabeth Wydeville accepted that
> in the short term she had to put up with him.
>
>
> --- In @y..., aelyon2001 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > Tim
> >
> > I have to disagree with you. Following the death of Edward of
> > Middleham there was no obvious heir and it was entirely normal
> > practice for a king in such a position to nominate an heir
pending
> > the birth of a son. There are abundant precedents. Richard was
> indeed
> > only 32 at his wife's death, but necessarily a second marriage
> would
> > take time to arrange (not least because there were other pressing
> > matters in the summer of 1485) and there would then be further
> delays
> > before it produced issue. He does not seem to have designated an
> > heir, but to do so would have been entirely realistic.
> >
> > At the time the royal succession was not fully based on
> primogeniture
> > and, in particular, the position of women was unclear. No woman
had
> > ever reigned in England, and the only one who tried (Matilda)
never
> > established herself on the throne. I have recently been doing
some
> > research into queens regnant on the continent, and it is clear
that
> a
> > woman would only succeed unchallenged when there were literally
no
> > legitimate male heirs.
> >
> > Edward of Warwick was the heir male, but if he were Richard's
heir,
> > why was he not king already? That would take some explaining. And
> if
> > he was indeed simple-minded that was an eminently good reason for
> > passing him over.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > --- In @y..., tmc_dale <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard III never named any specific heir in public. Given his
> age
> > > and the subsequent death of his wife he would widely have been
> > > expected to remarry and produce his own heir (he was only in
his
> > > early 30's). Certainly Lincoln was appointed to positions that
> > might
> > > have suggested to some observers that he was been groomed in
ways
> > > that indicated a preference by Richard in the event of his own
> > death,
> > > but no public proclamation or Act of Parliament was ever
produced.
> > >
> > > Had Richard been succeeded by Lincoln you could argue that
there
> > > would have been further dynastic conflict. The Earl of Warwick
> was
> > > the senior heir male and his sister Margaret came after him
> > (assuming
> > > you exclude the daughters of Edward IV). If you exclude them on
> the
> > > rather dodgy grounds of their father's attainder (which only
> > excluded
> > > Warwick from the title of Duke) then the next senior heir was
the
> > > young Anne St Leger daughter of Edward IV's eldest sister.
John
> de
> > > la Pole's mother may have been willing to do "a margaret
> beaufort"
> > > and resign her position to her son but it's wishful thinking
that
> > > John de la Pole would have succeeded without trouble.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In @y..., "Neil Trump"
> <neil.trump@b...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yes, he toyed with the idea of the earl of Warwick but
decided
> > > against that because of his father, Clarence's, attainder and
> > > possibly because the boy may have been simple. He designated
> John,
> > > Earl of Lincoln, his nephew (son of the Duke of Suffolk) as his
> > heir.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: lht1187
> > > > To: @y...
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:03 PM
> > > > Subject: Richard III's Heir
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did he designate an heir after the death of his son Edward?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > -unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html

I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
Can someone tell me more about this?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

Hello Ishita, it was Hastings who was routed he was opposite Oxford, Richard was on the right wing opposite Exeter and it is believed he was slightly wounded but held Exeter's troop's. Hastings men were followed by Oxfords, Oxford rallied some of his men and brought them back to the battle field but the alignment of the battle had changed and in the bad fog came up on the flank of Montagu/John Neville, who thought they were being flank attacked by Edwards troops, they fired on Oxford's troops and caused chaos. The troops then ran. Richard and Edward had joined up as Richard had pushed Exeter back after having flanked them in the fog. This is the gist of it.
Battle won. If the article you read has it any different then it is a mistake.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
>
> I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> Can someone tell me more about this?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>

Just want to clarify that this was a link on our branch (NSW) Facebook page to an article in question was written by Su Harrison, author of 'The Colour of Treason', which was published on her own webpage.




________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013 1:15 PM
Subject: Battle of Barnet



 
So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html

I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
Can someone tell me more about this?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
lost their lives protecting their lord.
Paul


On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
>
> I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> Can someone tell me more about this?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> lost their lives protecting their lord.
> Paul
>
>
> On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> >
> > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > Can someone tell me more about this?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > >
> > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.

Carol responds:

She names her source in the blog. It's "The Battle of Barnet" by Fiona Jones published by Barnet and District Local History Society.

To quote the blog:

"Fiona Jones writes that it isn't the experienced soldier and commander Will Hastings who loses his line to the rampaging Earl of Oxford, its a young man in his first battle command - Richard Duke of Gloucester. As Fiona says 'The Great Chronicle of London states that Oxford routed Gloucester and the Arrivall says the Lancastrian right wing routed the Yorkist left wing. There is no other contemporary evidence for other Yorkist deployments.' This also fits with Edward then keeping the same successful battle order for Tewkesbury where we know Hastings was on the right and Gloucester on the left. Buy almost any book on the Battle of Barnet (including the usually accurate Osprey series) and Tewkesbury and it has Hastings being routed on the left and then Edward switching them round for Tewkesbury, which never made sense to me. I think he stuck with the winning battle line-up from Barnet and so does Barnet Museum."

So you would need to consult the Fiona Jones book and the great Chronicle to see if there's any substance to this comment. However, neither source has Richard leading the van (an idea that may have come from Kendall?), only participating in the battle and performing heroically. Certainly, Edward wouldn't have had Richard leading the van at Tewkesbury if he had been routed at Barnet!

The Great Chronicle of London is a Tudor source unfriendly to Richard. I don't have time to check it now, but someone else can. The Arrivall, one of the few Yorkist chronicles though it's unfortunately limited to a few weeks in 1471, mentions Richard only in his role as constable after Tewkesbury.

However, another Yorkist source, an anonymous poem called "On the Recovery of the Throne by Edward IV," has this to say about Richard after Barnet:

"The duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce,
Yonge of age and victorius in batayle,
To the honour of Ectour [Hector] that he myghte comens,
Grace hym folowith, fortune, and good spede."

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a description of someone who couldn't hold his troops together.

Off to the ophthalmologist now for a pre-op for my cataract surgery next week. Hope this is worth all the money and inconvenience!

Carol

Thank you Carol!
Good luck with the surgery!




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Battle of Barnet



 


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.

Carol responds:

She names her source in the blog. It's "The Battle of Barnet" by Fiona Jones published by Barnet and District Local History Society.

To quote the blog:

"Fiona Jones writes that it isn't the experienced soldier and commander Will Hastings who loses his line to the rampaging Earl of Oxford, its a young man in his first battle command - Richard Duke of Gloucester. As Fiona says 'The Great Chronicle of London states that Oxford routed Gloucester and the Arrivall says the Lancastrian right wing routed the Yorkist left wing. There is no other contemporary evidence for other Yorkist deployments.' This also fits with Edward then keeping the same successful battle order for Tewkesbury where we know Hastings was on the right and Gloucester on the left. Buy almost any book on the Battle of Barnet (including the usually accurate Osprey series) and Tewkesbury and it has Hastings being routed on the left and then Edward switching them round for Tewkesbury, which never made sense to me. I think he stuck with the winning battle line-up from Barnet and so does Barnet Museum."

So you would need to consult the Fiona Jones book and the great Chronicle to see if there's any substance to this comment. However, neither source has Richard leading the van (an idea that may have come from Kendall?), only participating in the battle and performing heroically. Certainly, Edward wouldn't have had Richard leading the van at Tewkesbury if he had been routed at Barnet!

The Great Chronicle of London is a Tudor source unfriendly to Richard. I don't have time to check it now, but someone else can. The Arrivall, one of the few Yorkist chronicles though it's unfortunately limited to a few weeks in 1471, mentions Richard only in his role as constable after Tewkesbury.

However, another Yorkist source, an anonymous poem called "On the Recovery of the Throne by Edward IV," has this to say about Richard after Barnet:

"The duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce,
Yonge of age and victorius in batayle,
To the honour of Ectour [Hector] that he myghte comens,
Grace hym folowith, fortune, and good spede."

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a description of someone who couldn't hold his troops together.

Off to the ophthalmologist now for a pre-op for my cataract surgery next week. Hope this is worth all the money and inconvenience!

Carol

I'm not sure where that blogger got her information from but every source I've ever read on the Battle of Barnet has Hastings on the Yorkist left being routed by Oxford while Gloucester was on the Yorkist right engaging Henry Holland the Duke of Exeter.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Swift and complete recovery wishes...... I have a friend who had one eye done last week. Two days later she was at a Gala, and was amazed how clearly she could see!

On Apr 15, 2013, at 4:37 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Thank you Carol!
Good luck with the surgery!

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Battle of Barnet




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.

Carol responds:

She names her source in the blog. It's "The Battle of Barnet" by Fiona Jones published by Barnet and District Local History Society.

To quote the blog:

"Fiona Jones writes that it isn't the experienced soldier and commander Will Hastings who loses his line to the rampaging Earl of Oxford, its a young man in his first battle command - Richard Duke of Gloucester. As Fiona says 'The Great Chronicle of London states that Oxford routed Gloucester and the Arrivall says the Lancastrian right wing routed the Yorkist left wing. There is no other contemporary evidence for other Yorkist deployments.' This also fits with Edward then keeping the same successful battle order for Tewkesbury where we know Hastings was on the right and Gloucester on the left. Buy almost any book on the Battle of Barnet (including the usually accurate Osprey series) and Tewkesbury and it has Hastings being routed on the left and then Edward switching them round for Tewkesbury, which never made sense to me. I think he stuck with the winning battle line-up from Barnet and so does Barnet Museum."

So you would need to consult the Fiona Jones book and the great Chronicle to see if there's any substance to this comment. However, neither source has Richard leading the van (an idea that may have come from Kendall?), only participating in the battle and performing heroically. Certainly, Edward wouldn't have had Richard leading the van at Tewkesbury if he had been routed at Barnet!

The Great Chronicle of London is a Tudor source unfriendly to Richard. I don't have time to check it now, but someone else can. The Arrivall, one of the few Yorkist chronicles though it's unfortunately limited to a few weeks in 1471, mentions Richard only in his role as constable after Tewkesbury.

However, another Yorkist source, an anonymous poem called "On the Recovery of the Throne by Edward IV," has this to say about Richard after Barnet:

"The duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce,
Yonge of age and victorius in batayle,
To the honour of Ectour [Hector] that he myghte comens,
Grace hym folowith, fortune, and good spede."

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a description of someone who couldn't hold his troops together.

Off to the ophthalmologist now for a pre-op for my cataract surgery next week. Hope this is worth all the money and inconvenience!

Carol

Not to mention the anniversary of the deaths of Edward IV and Edward of Middleham last week, whom Richard protected to the best of his ability, every day of his life.

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> lost their lives protecting their lord.
> Paul

Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > >
> > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
> >
> > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

tmc_dale wrote:
>
>
> Richard III never named any specific heir in public. Given his age and the subsequent death of his wife he would widely have been expected to remarry and produce his own heir (he was only in his early 30's). Certainly Lincoln was appointed to positions that might have suggested to some observers that he was been groomed in ways that indicated a preference by Richard in the event of his own death,
> but no public proclamation or Act of Parliament was ever produced.
>
> Had Richard been succeeded by Lincoln you could argue that there would have been further dynastic conflict. The Earl of Warwick was the senior heir male and his sister Margaret came after him (assuming you exclude the daughters of Edward IV). If you exclude them on the rather dodgy grounds of their father's attainder (which only excluded Warwick from the title of Duke) then the next senior heir was the young Anne St Leger daughter of Edward IV's eldest sister. John de
> la Pole's mother may have been willing to do "a margaret beaufort"
> and resign her position to her son but it's wishful thinking that
> John de la Pole would have succeeded without trouble.


Carol responds:

It's true that Richard never announced an heir in public, presumably because he planned to marry and still hoped to produce his own legitimate heir, but had he needed to do so in a few years (if, for example, his new queen died in childbirth along with her child), he would certainly have chosen the loyal and competent Lincoln over the attainted and very young Earl of Warwick. Appointing him to the lieutenantcy of Ireland, a post that had been held by his son (in name only) and was generally reserved for the heir to the throne, certainly suggests that he had him in mind as his successor if he had no son.

As I understand it, female heirs were routinely ignored unless they had a son, in which case, you might have a dynastic conflict (the civil war between Maude the Empress and Stephen, for example, or the Yorkist claim through Philippa Mortimer vs. the junior claim of the Lancasters through John of Gaunt. But no one--or very few people--would have chosen George's daughter Margaret or Anne's daughter Anne St. Leger (whose father was a commoner and a traitor to Richard) over John of Lincoln assuming it had come to that, especially if Richard publicly proclaimed him his heir. In any case, she, like her brother, was conveniently barred by the attainder, and the Yorkist supporters of a Richard who won at Bosworth would be unlikely to reverse Titulus Regius to favor Edward of Warwick's claim over Lincoln's. The whole point of Titulus Regius, besides proclaiming Richard's right to the throne, was to secure the throne to the true Yorkist blood, skipping over male children (and not even considering female children except as they were incidentally illegitimized or attainted along with their brothers). The idea of a ruling queen of England didn't occur to anyone until Edward VI died, leaving England with a variety of female Tudor heirs (and a dynastic struggle that really didn't end until the execution of Mary Queen of Scots).

I don't recognize your name, so I'm guessing that you're new to the forum. I'm wondering if you're familiar with the negotiations that were under way for a marriage between Richard and Joanna of Portugal (who was a few months older than Richard), with a second marriage planned between Elizabeth of York and Joanna's cousin Manuel. Had that marriage gone through and had the thirty-three-year-old Joanna (who might have been thirty-four by the time a child was born) given him a son, the question of who should be next in line would still be important but less so than if Richard had a healthy heir. (The chief problem in my view was Joanna's age. Richard might have been better off with his back-up choice, the eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella.

All might have beens, unfortunately.

Carol

Hello Ishita, I have been to the site you mentioned and put a correction blog on there, hope it will get published there.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:41 AM
Subject: Re: Battle of Barnet


Mild ickiness warning....

> Not to mention the anniversary of the deaths of Edward IV and Edward of
> Middleham last week, whom Richard protected to the best of his ability,
> every day of his life.

Regarding the death of Edward IV, it's occurred to me that if it's true
about him dining in the Roman manner, gorging and then vomiting in order to
gorge again, he may have died by accidentally inhaling his own vomit which
iirc can lead to pneumonia.

Looking forward to it!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 17, 2013, at 6:29 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> Hello Ishita, I have been to the site you mentioned and put a correction blog on there, hope it will get published there.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi Ishita, the blog site person does not want to know, she has her own ideas but she will discredit herself in her novel if she carry's on with her present stance, I think it would be a waist of our time to do a further blog, if she wants to look an idiot let her get on with it.
Best Wishes
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Looking forward to it!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 6:29 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> > Hello Ishita, I have been to the site you mentioned and put a correction blog on there, hope it will get published there.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi Ishita! You are quite right and the blogger is quite wrong :) Richard was on the Yorkist right and Hastings was routed by Oxford on the Yorkist left. The reason their positions were "flopped" at Tewkesbury was that Edward didn't want Hastings going head-to-head with Somerset (who was clearly the Lancastrians most dangerous commander at the battle).

Ps. I hope that image I gave you of the chain mail didn't haunt you for TOO long :p

James

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

That's you?!
Lol!!! I snickered off and on for a long time!


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:17 PM, "Poet" <virginia_bard@...> wrote:

> Hi Ishita! You are quite right and the blogger is quite wrong :) Richard was on the Yorkist right and Hastings was routed by Oxford on the Yorkist left. The reason their positions were "flopped" at Tewkesbury was that Edward didn't want Hastings going head-to-head with Somerset (who was clearly the Lancastrians most dangerous commander at the battle).
>
> Ps. I hope that image I gave you of the chain mail didn't haunt you for TOO long :p
>
> James
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Yeah that's me :p That's my real name. When I saw Dickon say that the first thing that popped into my head was "chain mail" rofl!

James

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> That's you?!
> Lol!!! I snickered off and on for a long time!
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Apr 20, 2013, at 9:17 PM, "Poet" <virginia_bard@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ishita! You are quite right and the blogger is quite wrong :) Richard was on the Yorkist right and Hastings was routed by Oxford on the Yorkist left. The reason their positions were "flopped" at Tewkesbury was that Edward didn't want Hastings going head-to-head with Somerset (who was clearly the Lancastrians most dangerous commander at the battle).
> >
> > Ps. I hope that image I gave you of the chain mail didn't haunt you for TOO long :p
> >
> > James
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Christine. I have ordered the Hammond book. I wish I could make an intelligent comment on the blog post but know so little at this point that I will refrain for now:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 AM, "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello, My sources are P W Hammond The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and Battles of the Wars of the Roses by Geoffrey Richardson, Osprey Campaign Books Tewkesbury 1471 among others by Christopher Gravett illustrated by Graham Turner who all use original sources. I have all these books as I am interested in the military side of Richard as well as his personal side.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yes, LI should have mentioned it was a link to NSW.
> > > > > This blogger seems to imply that Richard bungled up this battle too. Which as Christine says is so different from what I know that I am completely puzzled.
> > > > > I wonder what her sources could be. Any help will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It was after Barnet that Richard acknowledged and named all the men who had fought for him at Barnet. Wasn't he particularly upset about the death of his Squire Thomas Parr?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you all remembered the anniversary of the battle yesterday and
> > > > > > > those who died there, including two of Richard's squires, who probably
> > > > > > > lost their lives protecting their lord.
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 15/04/2013 04:15, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > > > > > > > So I came upon this blog post in the NSW RIII society page
> > > > > > > > http://suwritesstuff.blogspot.com/2008/12/201208-final-battle.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I always thought that it was Hastings' rear that was routed by Oxford while Richard engaged Exeter. According to this post it was Gloucester who engaged with Oxford and his van was routed......If it is indeed true then it seems like Oxford bested Richard twice.......
> > > > > > > > Can someone tell me more about this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>