Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave

Expand Messages
  • Maria Torres
    The evidence, as I understand it, is that Richard responded to Hastings urgent note for him to hurry to London. He met with Anthony Woodville at Northampton
    Message 1 of 32 , Sep 20, 2012
      The evidence, as I understand it, is that Richard responded to Hastings' urgent note for him to hurry to London.  He met with Anthony Woodville at Northampton while Edward V was at Stony Stratford.  Buckingham joined them, I'm guessing on the urging of Hastings.  At Northampton, Richard took initiative and arrested Anthony and company, taking charge of Edward at Stony Stratford. 

      Something odd went down between Anthony and Richard at Northampton.  Whatever it was, it decided Richard into taking very abrupt action.  Upon this action, Elizabeth and her family went into sanctuary.  If Richard had known about the pre-contract, and had been planning on taking over, this would have been a lovely time to do so.  The lack of follow-through on the arrests and the fleeing of the queen indicates that Richard was intent on control of the young king and the situation, but not on getting the crown at this point.

      Richard, Buckingham, young Edward and company entered London, in, I believe, early May.  For several weeks, the council worked on general matters, on summoning a Parliament, and on the coronation; all kind of business as usual.  It wasn't until June 13 that things exploded again.  This is an odd timelag for someone who had a nice number of reins in his hand a month earlier, and again indicates to me that Richard was acting upon news as it came to him.   Once it came to him, he acted.  This is neither weak nor vacillating; it is neither good nor evil. It is a variety of people acting and reacting to a series of increasingly complicated and traumatic events.

      As to Richard's not answering to charges or rumors, etc., I can't answer that with any certainty, but I believe that if no one knew for sure the what or where of the princes, there was less chance of them being used against him in the near future.  And if he had sent them overseas, say, in mid-late 1483, for his and/or their security, it would be kind defeating the purpose to say so.

      Maria
      ejbronte@...



      On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Warren Malach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
       

      Upon the basis of WHAT evidence?  I agree that the "Tudor Myth" MUST be read with discrimination, but WHERE is the evidence that Richard did not ALREADY know of Bishop Stillington's testimony and PLAN to initially accept Edward V as king and then stage manage circumstances to disinherit him and his brother so that he could take the throne?  Why MUST one believe that Richard's "hand was forced by circumstances beyond his control"?  WHY were the Princes in the Tower gradually withdrawn and Richard NEVER answered the charges as early as the end of summer 1483 that they were dead?  Sorry, Richard had NOT proven himself to be a weak, hesitating sort BEFORE 1483. 

      Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:33 PM

      Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave

       
      He did go south, and he did gain the throne, but I sincerely doubt it was his original aim.

      Maria
      ejbronte@...

      On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Warren Malach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
       
      But Richard DID "go south" and seize the throne, didn't he?

      From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
      To: sceptredisle@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:13 PM

      Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave

       
      Hi All - As far as rebellions go, it would be hard to find a ruler in the fifteenth century who *didn't* have to face down at least one rebellion within months (s0metimes weeks or days) of inheriting the crown.  So Richard is actually in pretty good company regarding that.

      Nor was Edward V alone in the dethronement department of the period:  Enrique IV of Castile was dethroned (in an amazing spectacle at Avila) in favor of his fourteen-year-old half-brother, Alfonso.  When Isabel took the throne, she had to face down an extended rebellion and Portuguese invasion on behalf of Enrique's putative daughter, Juana; her husband Fernando and his father Juan II of Aragon spent years fighting down rebellions in favor of Juan's older son by his first marriage, Carlos de Viana; in the meanwhile, Juan and his brothers spend a few decades trying to take down their nephew Juan II of Castile.

      Over by way of France, Charles VII, famously, had his own troubles, and his son Louis XI also had to prove he was strong enough to keep what he had inherited.

      I'm not as educated in the political atmosphere of the Germanic and the Italian kingdoms, but do recall that Maximilian certainly had headaches preserving his position and that to be a person of authority in any of the Italian kingdoms was to live dangerously.

      Incidentally, I have a theory that if Richard had truly intended to grab the throne, his best course of action would have been to do absolutely nothing:  stay up North, send condolences, and sit back to watch the fur fly:  Hastings against Woodvilles; Morton possibly aligning with Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley to advance Henry Tudor; the child Edward V caught between conflicting interests.  Oh, I can see Hastings and his allies flocking to Middleham and offering Richard the crown on a silver platter. 

      In haste,

      Maria
      ejbronte@...

      On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Warren Malach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
       
      I can't understand how you can say that Richard's position was "secure" when he faced a rebellion within MONTHS of his coronation!  Regarding Richard's reforms, sure, kings who dethrone and (probably) murder their relatives can STILL pass good legislation. 

      Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:02 AM

      Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave

       
      Quite. Any change of this type involves conceding power. Ruthless and insecure rulers do not do this - Richard's position was strong enough until his son died the following year and his Queen followed.

      --- In mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com, William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
      >
      > Richard's reforms seem to have been well thought out. He seems to have been a stickler for good order. 
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Warren Malach <warrenmalach@...>
      > To: "mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:31:14 PM
      > Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      >
      >
      >  
      > Richard might have developed into a good king, but he didn't have the time to do so.  Also, kings HAVE been known to try to buy support by promising/enacting reforms. 
      >
      >
      > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@...>
      > To: mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:26 AM
      > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      >
      >
      >  
      > J.D.Mackie's "The Early Tudors", although in the semi-hostile tradition on other points, details these legal reforms.
      >
      > --- In mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Again, it appears I get to answer two topics w/one post! LOL If this be again the "two birds with one stone", do I say "cheep! cheep!" or "tweet! tweet!???" Perhaps the latter, LOL, given today's technology!
      > >  
      > > "History written by the winners". Yes, too true. Even Evil Adolf said that just before he launched WW2. The particular scene was a meeting w/his top advisors just before the attack on Poland. "The Leader" has just been asked, something to the effect "well, isn't it clear that we're doing an unprovoked attack?" And The Evil Leader's answer was something "An event /
      > reason will be provided. And don't worry! We as the victors will write the history!" That isn't an exact quote, but I think the meaning is clear.
      > >  
      > > Second one, bail & legal aid & freedom of speech? From him?? Really?? I confess, news to me! But how might that "square" w/the 1215 Magna Carta, from which so many rights are supposed to have come? I confess a bit of confusion there.
      > >  
      > > One thing also that seems interesting. Both monarchs, Richard III and John, "not well viewed", neither has had their name taken again after their deaths! Interesting!
      > >  
      > > Bill
      > >
      > > --- On Fri, 9/14/12, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@>
      > > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      > > To: mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com
      > > Date: Friday, September 14, 2012, 9:19 AM
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > It is to Richard III that we owe the concepts of bail, legal aid and freedom of speech - ideas that spread in colonies discovered after his death through the spread of "English common law".
      > >
      > > --- In mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com, Warren Malach <warrenmalach@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > But Richard was not in the position which he was in during the spring/summer of 1483 before that time.  Before then he was a loyal associate of his brother King Edward, but after Edward's death he was forced by the opposition of the Woodvilles and their allies to decide
      > what he had to do for the longterm survival of himself and his family.  He opted to seize power and hope for "better times," but it didn't work out that way.  History, as we know, is written by the "winners."
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@>
      > > > To: mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:39 PM
      > > > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >  
      > > > Richard III had a very strong claim. All of those who would appear to precede him were barred either by illegitimacy or attainder.
      > > > Henry VII's wife and mother were both
      > barred by illegitimacy (more remote in the latter case). His only claim was by conquest.
      > > >
      > > > Richard's critics accuse him of being utterly ruthless for three months in summer 1483 - but not before or afterwards. His brother, George of Clarence, was the Duke executed by alleged alcoholic drowning.
      > > >
      > > > There were some family connections btween the Wars of the Roses (posthumous name: Red = Lancaster, White = York) and the 1640s Civil Wars.
      > > >
      > > > --- In mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I guess the "two birds with one stone" analogy helps here. I get to answer two postings with one of my own! LOL
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > My understanding is basically what was "current" like 50 years ago. Yes, I've seen that long a period on this 3rd Rock From The Sun, and more! LOL So I
      > remember movies that were @ best, even in that old era, Grade B if not worse. I remember Richard III portrayed as this schemer, bloodthirsty, and grabbed The Throne by force, not by birthright. And it was also the climax of the War of the Roses (and no, I can't remember if the Red Rose was Lancastrian, or House of York! ) and the Tudors pretty much had a tenuous hold on the throne, in terms of legitimate inheritance as understood @ that time. One infamous scene, in awfully low quality black and white, from that ancient movie, Malmsey "met his fate" (again, if memory serves) in a vat of the same substance! Like Hic! Glub!
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > So a great deal more material on Richard III might be available today!
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > One point of curiosity here! Okay, you had all sorts of English Civil Wars in the 1460's / 1480's etc. I'm very sure there is a connection to
      > the English Civil Wars of the 1640's! Eh?
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > Comments anybody?
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > Bill
      > > > >
      > > > > --- On Wed, 9/12/12, Warren Malach <warrenmalach@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > From: Warren Malach <warrenmalach@>
      > > > > Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      > > > > To: "mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 1:20 PM
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Since I was kicked out of the Richard III Yahoo group, permit me to give my "take"
      > on Richard III.ÃÆ'‚  As a "Ricardian" from my childhood until I became an adult, I finally came to realize that the effort to "overturn the Tudor Myth" about Richard had gone too far and turned Richard into some sort of "plaster saint," which he certainly wasn't.ÃÆ'‚  He was a man of his times and in order to gain/stay in power as king he was willing to kill people without benefit of trial, such as Hastings.ÃÆ'‚  He was morally responsible for the deaths of the Princes, and could have been directly responsible for their deaths--this has never been disproven.ÃÆ'‚  That he was a courageous warrior and had personal virtues lacking in others, such as Edward IV, I don't doubt.ÃÆ'‚  But some "Ricardians" are so emotionally invested in Richard that they have lost allÃÆ'‚ historical objectivity about him; the way some "Ricardian" women talk
      > about
      > > Richard it sounds like they've read
      > > > those romantic
      > > > > novels about him and are in love with him as their "knight in shining armor"!ÃÆ'‚  This emotional attachment to Richard III has left me leery of "Ricardians" in general.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@>
      > > > > To: mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:49 AM
      > > > > Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's Grave
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Bill and company - as an avid Ricardian who can also appreciate Henry VII's intelligence, I would be interested in knowing the specifics of your view of Richard, and why your
      > view of him is negative.
      > > > >
      > > > > With interest and in haste,
      > > > >
      > > > > Maria
      > > > > ejbronte@
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Bill Ramsay <dollars_histry@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-skeleton-may-king-richard-iii-121528688.html
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > Here'sÃÆ'‚ a recent article (found it today) on the Richard III story. I confess, I have a rather dim view of this monarch, which
      > admittedly might be Tudor propaganda. But I also like a whole lot Henry VII, as he was a fiscal conservative and in general, tried to give England a peace it was sorely lacking up to his accession to the throne in 1485. So yes, my view might be "skewed".
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > It will be interesting to see what new facts, uncontestable facts, can be unearthed and ascertained.
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > Bill
      > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > > --- On Wed, 9/12/12, stephenmlark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > From: stephenmlark <stephenmlark@>
      > > > > Subject: [sceptredisle] Re: Human Remains Found in Search for King Richard III's GraveTo: mailto:sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 9:24 AM
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > ÃÆ'‚ 
      > > > >
      > > > > There is comparable mitochondial DNA taken from a lady in Canada who was descended from his sister and whose son has attended some of the digging:https://www.dropbox.com/s/ucdndp9zxc9t22r/University%20of%20Leicester%20statement,%2012%20September.pdf --- In http://us.mc1252.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sceptredisle%40yahoogroups.com, S Kevin Wojtaszek <skevin53@> wrote: > > I've been holding off on posting anything more about this until there were > human forensics to consider. Over the past couple of weeks, they've found > ceramic tiles and archetectural embellishments. To me, it seems too early > for DNA work to have been done on the remains reported here. > > http://news.yahoo.com/human-remains-found-search-king-richard-iiis-grave-231702561.html >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >










    • Ed Simons
      ... Only if you ignore that Richard did defend himself against the charge.
      Message 32 of 32 , Sep 26, 2012
        On 9/20/2012 2:27 PM, Warren Malach wrote:
        Once Richard was king, he had his OWN reputation to protect, and when it came to the rumors about the Princes' deaths, he did NOTHING to protect it, but he DID do so regarding the rumors about his plans to marry Elizabeth: more worried about being accused of incestuous desires than of the murder of family members!  THAT was an open admission that he could NOT defend himself against the charge of murder.

        Only if you ignore that Richard did defend himself against the charge.

        http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1983

        Here it again, though I don't expect you to pay any more attention to it than 3 months ago on the other list.


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.