tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post1126062296169456965..comments2024-03-24T08:30:43.258+01:00Comments on FLY HIGH!: RICHARD III : USURPER OR RIGHTFUL KING? GUESTPOST BY BARBARA GASKELL DENVILMaria Graziahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08876779286144473782noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-24972285624169064472017-04-16T21:57:53.915+02:002017-04-16T21:57:53.915+02:00Annette Carson's book Richard as Lord Protecto...Annette Carson's book Richard as Lord Protector and Constable of England lays out in detail his special powers. Indeed he did not require a trial. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-48050930611267869492017-04-16T21:47:15.152+02:002017-04-16T21:47:15.152+02:00You have answered it. They were in the Tower prepa...You have answered it. They were in the Tower preparing for Edwards coronation. Richard was not aiming for the throne as there was no legal means to do so at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-68999806748657307262012-01-01T02:28:18.473+01:002012-01-01T02:28:18.473+01:00Wonderful discussion!
As a source, Mancini was no...Wonderful discussion! <br />As a source, Mancini was not English - and continental European interests never made reliable sources for English history. No doubt the same was true of English documentation of European events. There were always interests to be served in creating myths and disinformation. There is simply too little known in a 14th C civil war to ever be certain of "truth". Perhaps much benefit of doubt accrues to Richard Plantagenet, who lived by "loyaultie me lie" to his brother, and to his commitment as the lord of the north. Nevertheless, it is always fascinating to return to the subject of Richard III and discuss the pros and cons.<br />fitzgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-11943383252606068662011-12-30T00:29:20.145+01:002011-12-30T00:29:20.145+01:00Thanks so much to everyone for their input. Sorry ...Thanks so much to everyone for their input. Sorry about the typo - 1485 and 1483 get written so often they can sometimes seem to swap places!!! Buckingham's claim to the throne was excellent and I agree with you David, though there was also Lincoln. Tudor's claim was non-existant as you say, but apart from the fabricated and exaggerated tales of his own family background, he claimed by right of conquest. His marriage was extremely important and brought some him public acceptance, but personally he attempted to downgrade his need for his wife's position and delayed his marriage until his throne felt secure without her.<br />I'm just delighted that people still find the subject of interest.<br />Good reading to everyone, and a happy 2012Barbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-18667872026457756252011-12-29T16:13:38.817+01:002011-12-29T16:13:38.817+01:00Barbara, thank you so much for a very interesting ...Barbara, thank you so much for a very interesting article about Richard III. His story is mesmerising and the fact that so many facts remain unknown makes it the perfect subject for fiction.<br />I'm personally also intrigued by Richard's wife, Anne Neville. Her short life revolved around loyalty and duty and as she was a woman, there is even less information about who she actually was.<br />Thanks again for sharing your knowledge with us!IngeD3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-41721563010707255282011-12-29T13:59:51.397+01:002011-12-29T13:59:51.397+01:00Other than Richard, the Duke of Buckingham had the...Other than Richard, the Duke of Buckingham had the next best legal claim to the Throne and may have supported Richard as a stepping stone. Likewise his support for Henry Tudor may have been for the similar reason, to eliminate another rival. One thing is for sure and that is Henry Tudor had no legal right to the Throne as he was barred twice on the grounds of Bastardry and could only bolster his very weak claim by marrying Edward V's sister, Elizabeth.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-42518748890129643232011-12-29T13:52:40.653+01:002011-12-29T13:52:40.653+01:00'SATIN CINNABAR by BARBARA GASKELL DENVIL set...'SATIN CINNABAR by BARBARA GASKELL DENVIL set in London 1483, which starts on the battlefield shortly after King Richard’s death.' I hope the date of 1483 is a typo, as Richard came to the Throne in 1483 and was killed in 1485.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-80539167308833416342011-12-29T12:07:39.866+01:002011-12-29T12:07:39.866+01:00I love hearing the stories of England's past. ...I love hearing the stories of England's past. I just wish modern governments would learn from past mistakes. Interesting story on radio 4 this mmorning about the life of Elizabeth of York. Will be seeking a book on her story after the hearing how incredible she was.Mohttp://aglimpseoflondon.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-26355417364852473572011-12-29T06:00:08.911+01:002011-12-29T06:00:08.911+01:00Thanks for all the info!Thanks for all the info!Debra Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-6745771141258233062011-12-28T22:28:14.261+01:002011-12-28T22:28:14.261+01:00Dear Debra, I'd love to oblige with a clear co...Dear Debra, I'd love to oblige with a clear concise answer but once again I'm afraid we are in 'muddle country' !! No one knows the actual explanation for Buckingham's rather sudden betrayal. Richard himself appeared amazed and deeply hurt. He wrote with passion concerning the treachery of someone he had considered a friend and loyal supporter. (Richard took the concept and practise of loyalty very seriously). But Buckingham's character is highly suspect as far as we can tell. He had royal blood himself (and probably a better claim to the throne than the eventual Henry VII, the first Tudor king) and had been placed in close contact with John Morton who was a bitter and passionate opponent of Richard III. It has been supposed that John Morton 'seduced' Buckingham into revolt, playing up to his greed, conceit and ambition. But we are left with one simple fact. Frankly - speculation can be fun - but no one knows. <br />This is one of the reasons why people still feel so strongly about Richard III - either for or against - even after more than 500 years. There remain huge gaps in our knowledge and the mysteries are tantalisingly - well - mysterious!Barbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-49663244457705171482011-12-28T01:44:00.252+01:002011-12-28T01:44:00.252+01:00While I have you on the line, ;) why did the Duke ...While I have you on the line, ;) why did the Duke of Buckingham turn against Richard?Debra Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-1678749110957345912011-12-28T00:59:31.321+01:002011-12-28T00:59:31.321+01:00Thanks very much Alfie. Best of luck to you.
Dear ...Thanks very much Alfie. Best of luck to you.<br />Dear Susan, may I point out that Mancini hardly counts as an authoritative commentator. As a non English speaker his accounts, from whatever sources gleaned, tend to be erratic. For a start, we know Hastings was not “cut down” on the spot, and declaring a ‘false’ pretext of treason still admits that treason was, in fact, the accusation. Mancini also writes that previously Hastings, Rotherham and Morton (a principal known opponent of Richard) had been foregathering in each other’s homes – with a clear intimation that some sort of conspiracy was being hatched.<br />But Mancini’s accounts are frequently somewhat contradictory. He was certainly not privy to council meetings and there’s no room here to analyse his motives and ‘master’. <br />We also know that the Crowland Chronicle’s later assertions are wildly prejudiced. But even that very short summary does not include the rather silly later assertions of Thomas More.<br />Several others were arrested at the same time both in and out of the council chamber, including some lesser known individuals, proving that a wide spread conspiracy was at least suspected. This was no private vendetta against Hastings. <br />I dispute the denial of the Protector’s right of summary execution of anyone discovered in treason. At that time Richard’s position, ratified by council, stood him in place of the monarch and as such I believe he had every legal right to order the execution of a traitor. Of course what I do not know – and nor does anyone – is what proof of treason was presented to the council that day. Crowland’s “Without justice or judgement” is highly speculative. Judgement (with or without justice) was clearly given since this all took place in public and amongst the highest powers in the land, all of whom had the capability of protesting. This was no secret act of murder. It was an execution done – albeit hurriedly – very much in the open. Richard had already written regarding the uncovering of a plot against him, and afterwards a public proclamation was given announcing Hastings's execution and citing a plan to assassinate the Protector. Legality was certainly accepted at the time. <br />The haste of the execution may have been unwise. Or it may have been necessary as an example, bringing an incisive halt to an existing widespread danger. We just do not know.Barbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-39704045701741805652011-12-27T19:51:58.450+01:002011-12-27T19:51:58.450+01:00@Maria. I am really grateful for all the knowledge...@Maria. I am really grateful for all the knowledge I am reciving through this fandom . The more I learn of Richard III and english history, the more I chear for the film project. And now just as much for sake of the King, as for the sake of Richard Armitage ;-) <br /><br />@B.G.Denvil. Thank you for a really interesting post. I am a newbie in Richard III and english history (AND not english), and I found your post understandable(for a newbie), facinating and not the least boring ;-) <br />Really interesting part about the marriages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-8177519519579973712011-12-27T19:50:33.054+01:002011-12-27T19:50:33.054+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-61881008346877676592011-12-27T15:59:37.881+01:002011-12-27T15:59:37.881+01:00It's simply not true that the only account of ...It's simply not true that the only account of Hastings' murder comes from Thomas More. Take a look at Dominic Mancini's contemporary account, which was written during Richard III's reign: "Thereupon the soldiers, who had been stationed there by their lord, rushed in with the duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings on the false pretext of treason . . . Thus fell Hastings, killed not by those enemies he had always feared, but by a friend whom he had never doubted." <br /><br />The Crowland Chronicler, also writing long before More, describes Hastings' execution as being "without justice or judgment."<br /><br />Nor did Richard as protector have the right to summarily execute Hastings without trial. Even by the standards of the day, Hastings should have been formally indicted and tried. As J. G. Bellamy wrote in "The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages," "In 1483 there does not seem to have been any legal process at all, proper or improper, before the execution of William Lord Hastings, and there seems to have been very little before the deaths of Earl Rivers, Sir Richard Grey, Sir Thomas Vaughan and Sir Richard Hawte. That examples like these were so rare is to the credit of the English governmental system of the later middle ages and the essentially moderate law of treason which was a vital part of it."Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-738801056462380222011-12-27T08:47:13.626+01:002011-12-27T08:47:13.626+01:00Debra - I love your rational attitude. There is no...Debra - I love your rational attitude. There is no proof of Richard's innocence - but also no proof whatsoever of his guilt in anything at all. Indeed, the small amount of factual evidence in existance tends to point towards Richard being a dutiful man greatly interested in loyalty and justice. And we KNOW that Henry Tudor later covered up the truth and painted the evil picture without foundation. That CAN be proved. But we are left with a fascinating enigma.<br />I love this era of history and have studied it extensively - hence my writing - not specifically about Richard but about that age. And there'll be more books to follow.Barbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-48839707089990457112011-12-27T08:27:36.130+01:002011-12-27T08:27:36.130+01:00Thanks for the comment and link. I am glad to hear...Thanks for the comment and link. I am glad to hear the other side of the story. It is only in recent years that I have had time to look into the history that I love so much, and there are thousands of years of it to study. As in our personal lives, we must look at both sides of a coin in history- no matter whose face is on it.Debra Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-60350287149479713732011-12-27T07:13:05.529+01:002011-12-27T07:13:05.529+01:00Hi Debra - It's nice to chat with someone who ...Hi Debra - It's nice to chat with someone who is interested.<br />The bones found under an ancient staircase in the Tower were dug up in the late 1600s, and were examined several times, most recently in the 1930s. They are not full skeletons and were originally chucked on a rubbish dump and got mixed with animal bones. No one can verify their proper ages, nor whether these were male or female. Nor is there the slightest indication of date. Many people think they must date back to Roman times and were buried before The Tower was even built. One skull shows significant signs of degenerative bone disease, which neither of these two princes suffered from. It would have been exceddingly noticeavble, but they were known as very fit and healthy young boys.<br />These random bones have caused a great deal of supposition but they seem MOST unlikely to have anything to do with Edward IV's sons.<br />Yes, it is extremely sad that we have no record of what happened but so many documents of that time were later purposefully destroyed by the Tudors - and also by the passage of time.<br />If you're interested in the possible fate of the princes, please use the link below:<br />http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/?p=6487. -<br />and let me know what you think.<br />Good luck, BarbaraBarbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-22314985459975809302011-12-27T06:33:16.923+01:002011-12-27T06:33:16.923+01:00Thanks for your reply. And I am neutral, but quest...Thanks for your reply. And I am neutral, but questions remain. It seems strange that there is no record of where the boys went, and especially since two boy's skeletons were found under some stairs in the Tower in I think about 1930. That doesn't mean Richard killed them, but it seems to mean that someone did. <br /><br />Just curiosity- I am not as well read on the subject as you are, certainly.Debra Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-10409123195366541782011-12-27T06:18:42.573+01:002011-12-27T06:18:42.573+01:00Hello David and Debra - Neither of these questions...Hello David and Debra - Neither of these questions permits a simple answer but I will do my best. Please forgive me for being rather long winded - I hope it's not too boring.<br />First Debra - the eldest 'prince' (not taken from his mother as he had not lived with her for many years) was taken to the royal apartments in the Tower as a matter of proper tradition to await his coronation. At that time - and for some centuries following - ALL future monarchs spent at least the night before their crowning in the Tower where special chambers of great luxury were prepared. The Tower of London was - quite simply - a royal palace. The future king's younger brother then joined him there as a matter of decency and choice.<br />From there - and security would have been considerable for all important persons - after some months when they were served royally and seen constantly - they finally disappeared. We do not know what happened to them. No accusation of murder was brought. We have absolutely NO idea (let alone proof) of what then happened. Rumour later ran riot - including those claiming that the boys lived on and were safely shipped either to Northern England or abroad (probably to their aunt the Duchess of Burgundy) - but we just do not know. Honestly and truly - we do not know.<br />By the way, Richard was made Lord Protector of the whole land, and of the princes, by order of their father's (the late King Edward IV) last will and testament.<br />As for Hastings, we know even less for sure. The chroniclers of the time simply wrote that Hastings was discovered in a plot of treason and was therefore executed. No more than that.<br />As Lord Protector, Richard had the legal right to order the summary execution of anyone caught in treacherous conspiracies. This was NOT murder. This was legal according to the law of the land at that time. As Hasting's arrest took place during an important meeting of Council, it is almost positive that the other council members concurred with the judgement. Certainly they did not object. Perhaps proof against Hastings was produced at the time. We do not know and such proof certainly no longer exists. Was it fair and just? We can only guess - but it WAS legal.<br />However, no protest was made at the time, no public outcry and no complaint by Hasting's friends or family. Indeed, several other men were also arrested in accordance with the same accusations of treason. These were all later pardoned. Hastings, as the ring leader, was made the example. <br />The wildly dramatic description of Richard's treatment of Hastings is NOT corroborated by the legal accounts or chroniclers of the time. It is an account existing ONLY in Thomas More's far later 'biography' of Richard III witten many, many years later in accoradance with Tudor propoganda. This wildy emotive biograhy reads more like a modern tale of teenage vampires - even sillier than some. (And Thomas More was certainly not present at the time).<br />So whether there was really a good reason for Hasting's execution, we can no longer prove - or even be sure. But he was NOT dragged out and brutally slaughtered. He was found guilty of treason during council, and was legally (if a little hurriedly) executed according to law. <br />I hope I haven't been too boring here. Please do ask if I haven't made anything clear.Barbara Gaskell Denvilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-53229027227056281962011-12-27T01:59:56.388+01:002011-12-27T01:59:56.388+01:00My stand is neutral; I just want to know the known...My stand is neutral; I just want to know the known facts. But who wanted the boys killed? Why was Richard called their Lord Protector? Why were they not better protected? Why were they even taken from their mother if they were nobody?Debra Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5114395886235179043.post-39092565618776936342011-12-27T00:34:55.339+01:002011-12-27T00:34:55.339+01:00Explain Richard's hideous and utterly illegal ...Explain Richard's hideous and utterly illegal murder of Lord Hastings, then. He had the man dragged out of the council chamber and brutally slaughtered.David Pillinghttp://pillingswritingcorner.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com