Richard III, Lord of the North and Leicester's Tourist Attraction

[bkohatl]

That is what I understood to be true as well

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Silver Blaze

I think it is far more in King Richard's favor that Thomas More CHOSE not to publish "his" History of King Richard III. Which makes perfect sense if he came to the conclusion that it wasn't true. Whether it was copied from a political diatribe of Lancastrian supporter Cardinal Morton or from what he was told when he was a member of Cardinal Morton's household as a child, I think, that Thomas came to the conclusion that it may not have been the truth. What an incredible act of injustice to King Richard III that all opinion since then has been based on this Tudor/Lancastrian propaganda.

King Richard III should be buried with his wife and son, in the place he chose: YORK!

My understanding is that Leicester is now looking for Cardinal Woolsey's remains, which should be buried there since Henry VIII took Hampton Court for the Crown(Woolsey's home).

[Phil H]

I think it is far more in King Richard's favor that Thomas More CHOSE not to publish "his" History of King Richard III.

As he never FINISHED either version of the book, More may never have made a decision - there was nothing TO BE published.

Which makes perfect sense if he came to the conclusion that it wasn't true. Whether it was copied from a political diatribe of Lancastrian supporter Cardinal Morton or from what he was told when he was a member of Cardinal Morton's household as a child, I think, that Thomas came to the conclusion that it may not have been the truth.

On what basis do you make that judgement? he might equally well have lost interest or been too busy with official duties.

What an incredible act of injustice to King Richard III that all opinion since then has been based on this Tudor/Lancastrian propaganda.

It hasn't! What about Polydor Virgil, other Tudor court historians, the Croyland Chronicle etc etc? They are all to some extent anti-Richard. Richard's reputation - whether fair or not - was not great in his reign. Also the bones demonstrate that the "myth" of Richard was not wholly wrong - in how much more were they right, is the question historians should now be asking.

King Richard III should be buried with his wife and son, in the place he chose: YORK!

Where is your source for saying Richard chose York as his place of burial? As far as I know, he left NO indication of where he would be buried.

Had he wanted to be buried with Anne (his Queen) then he would surely have been buried in Westminster Abbey where she was interred? Do you imagine the Abbey would allow her to be disinterrred/exhumed?

Do you know where his son's remains are then? If you do you are more knowledgeable than anyone else. Latest research I have read questions whether the tomb in Sheriff Hutton (often said to be that of Edward of Middleham) may not be his. The heraldry on the tomb is wrong for him.

My understanding is that Leicester is now looking for Cardinal Woolsey's remains, which should be buried there since Henry VIII took Hampton Court for the Crown(Woolsey's home).

Hampton Court is NOT a church so Wolsey could never have been buried there! He also had other homes/houses. Wolsey's chosen place of burial was Windsor - in the building now known as The Albert Memorial Chapel, just behind St George's. His tomb chest was later used for nelson and is in St Paul's.

I think also you'll find that Wolsey GAVE Henry VIII his houses, especially York Place (later Whitehall) and HCt (to be scrupulous). Whether he could give away church property in that way is another question. As is whether he had much choice. But let's be accurate shall we.

Phil

[Steve S]

I'm being very restrained here,as Phil is saying it so well...........

[Jenni Shelden]

He has been buried in Leicester for 500 years, right where everyone siad he was buried. If York wanted him so bad, they dhould have spent the money to come and get him.

[Phil H]

Spot on Jenni.

But more than that, York has NO CLAIM to Richard.

Yes, the record shows that remembered him after his death with loyalty and affection (for the most part) but Richard never lived there or did more than visit the place. His home in Yorkshire was at Middleham (Wensleydale) where he founded a college - and that might have something of the better claim if any were to be considered.

True Richard had a northern "crown wearing" in York and seems to have invested his son as Prince of Wales there, but he was crowned at Westminster, so that cancels that argument out.

There have been several (IMHO ill-judged) remarks that Leicester is somehow trying to "cash in" on Richard, but as I see it, it is York who are doing that, having invested a great deal in making the City a Ricardian centre. (Rather like Stratfiord on Avon has a vested interest in ensuring no rival cliamant - Bacon, Oxford etc) deposes THEIR William Shakespeare as the playwright.)

Yet it was in Leicester that the RIII Society placed the memorial slab in the Cathedral - they did not chose to do so in York, even though when put in place it was a cenotaph with no body under it or likely to be.

So let's have an end to this unsoundly based "bashing" of Leicester. It is unworthy and pointless.

Thanks again Jenni for your resounding comment.

Phil

[bkohatl]

Tracts not the tracts

Henry VIII was reputed to have had the tracts published under his name ghost written which earned him the title of Defender of the Faith by the Pope in 1521.

I mistyped, "had the tracts" which should "had tracts". I apologize for the error.

[Cogidubnus]

wrong side of the tracts I guess...

sorry!

Dave

[Bridewell]

King Richard III should be buried with his wife and son, in the place he chose: YORK!

bkohatl

Where does he make this choice?

[Bridewell]

He has been buried in Leicester for 500 years, right where everyone siad he was buried. If York wanted him so bad, they dhould have spent the money to come and get him.

Quite so. No-one in York was interested in looking for Richard's body - and they've had hundreds of years in which to express an interest in doing so. There is an impressive commemorative slab in the place of honour in the chancel of Leicester Cathedral, alluding to his death and the fact that he is thought to have been buried in the vicinity. The cathedral is literally a stone's throw from where the body was found. The fact that it's an Anglican cathedral whereas Richard III was Catholic is a total red herring (not to mention an obvious anachronism) because he died before the Reformation, so Catholicism was the only game in town.

[Bridewell]

Needless to say Richard never attended this church, nor practiced the Anglican Faith.

No, indeed he didn't. There was no Anglican faith to practise, so this is a total irrelevance.

[Phil H]

John Ashdown-Hill, who's book on Richard a couple of years ago, "inspired" the search for the King's body, has now published an updated p/back version.
I bought a copy yesterday.

In the new version, Hill (like Richard III a Roman Catholic) says he has discussed funeral arrangements for Richard with the Cathedral authroities in Leicester the inclusion of elements of catholic liturgy in the service and the invitation of members of the Catholic hierarchy. He writes that he was pleased to be reassured on both points, especially given Richard's known religious devotion.

So it appears that the "Catholic" issue is being addressed and positively so.

(By the way, I didn't say in my earlier pots, but York Minster is also - of course - an ANGLICAN cathedral, whatever its origins, so exactly the same issues would arise in regard to a rebural there.)

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Errata,

Actually Henry VIII received the title Defender Of The Faith or Defender Fidelis because he wrote a book titled In Defense Of The Seven Sacraments in 1521 which attacked Martin Luther and Luther's Attack on the Catholic Church abuses and their seven sacraments in 1517 not because his wife was Katharine Of Aragon, the aunt of Charles V. although Charles probably appreciated the book as he himself had already had it would with Luther in 1520.

(Edited) oops I see I missed the following pages I just caught the first one.

[Semper_Eadem]

I read John Ashdown-Hill's Eleanor, The Secret Queen, while he made an excellent study of her life he didn't convince me of the secret marriage or supposed secret marriage of Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Talbot Butler. Although Edward and Eleanor might have made a secret vow of their intention to wed in front of Bishop Stillington. They might have plighted their troth as it were which was a medieval version of an Engagement or promise to wed. Still she did not come forward when he married Elizabeth Wydevile. Although it could be argued that since Edward married Elizabeth Wydeville in secret then Eleanor Talbot didn't have any change to come forward she did have an opportunity and the relatives (her sister was the Duchess Of Norfolk) to back her claim but she didn't which leads me to believe that there wasn't a secret marriage. Anyways, I recommend Eleanor, The Secret Queen as it is jam packed full of info on the Talbot and Butler families and even on the Carmelites an order Eleanor joined in her widowhood that I found fascinating.

[Phil H]

Would you risk challenging a King in regard to a prior marriage view? Especially if you knew that everone else involved (including Stillington, the officiating priest) was likely to back up the King?

Would you risk blemishing your reputation - Eleanor had likely given herself to Edward after the ceremony so was "spoiled goods" in marriage terms. She could also be made to look foolish and her family could suffer.

In the England of 1462/3 communications were slow and Edward's marriage was ultra ultra secret - he did not even tell his Council until he had to. So Eleanor may not have heard for months. A bit late to protest then. And with what prospect, that edward would shun her and her family and she would be no better off?

By the time it may have been known, thebitterness the Wydville marriage kindled in high places (Warwick and Clarence were both furious for different reasons) that for Eleanor to come forward then would surely have been a "political" act.

Finally, on this point, Edward could, at any point up to the birth of his son, have taken some steps to legitimate his marriage to Elizabeth, certainly after Eleanor's death. With legal and canon law advice a way through might have been found - Eleanor paid off and silenced (money or death?) so that a second (legal) Wydville ceremony could be performed. Eleanor could not have known that Edward would never do anything about it.

So, all in all and in C15th terms, I can well understand Eleanor's silence.

Put what we now know in context - Lady Eleanor was EXEACTLY the sort of woman this might have been true of - high birth, good character - and her subsequent life does not suggest anything different. Take then that Clarence appears to have known something in the 1470s, if not earlier, against Edward and the Wydville faction and died for it. Then take the actions of mid-1483 (circumstantial I know) but you have an explanation in the pre-contract. Stillington's known role and fate suggests that he was the key figure. I also find these days that hasting's hasty execution is best explained by the fury of Richard (and maybe others) could have felt if they discovered he had concealed the fact of the bigamous marriage, and the illegitimacy of the heirs, perhaps for years, perhaps since the time it happened. More he had promoted Edward V's accession and said nothing.

I doubt we will ever know the full truth, because the Tudors were careful to detroy anything that might speak against the legitimacy of Henry VII's Queen. Maybe one day some account of the discussions prior to Richard III being offered the throne will emerge (like his bones) at an unlikely time and place - but I am not holding my breath.

Nevertheless in the jigsaw of 1483 there are missing pieces, gaping holes in our knowledge. The precontract and lady Eleanor are a pretty exact fit, IMHO, for one of those holes.

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Phil,
If I was in Eleanor's shoes and the King had married me I would risk it. Namely because Elizabeth Wydeville was only the daughter of a Squire while Eleanor was the daughter of an belted Earl (Shrewsbury). I also think if there was a betrothal or marriage it was probably took place in the autumn of 1461 which as Ashdown-Hill proves Eleanor was living with her sister, the Duchess Of Norfolk, who probably witnessed it. She might not of witnessed it but I do believe she knew of it. So if there was a marriage Eleanor had her sister and brothers to back her up.

Phil we know that Edward married Elizabeth Wydeville in May of 1464 with tow gentleman and her mother and a blind boy to help the officiating priest sing the nuptial mass so the there was no 1462/63 unless you are referring to Eleanor who seems to have stayed with her sister.

I think Edwards family and the Nobility and common people would of accepted a marriage better between Eleanor and the King if she did come forward as Eleanor Butler nee Talbot was of a higher social status then Elizabeth Wydeville but I'll give you that might be a moot point.

It would seem if there was not a Marriage or was that the King tired of Eleanor very quickly and that they went their separate ways. I never said that Eleanor did not sleep with the King Edward just that they probably did not marry. Eleanor was of good character, which is while I believe that there might of been a promise of Marriage but no actual marriage.

Eleanor could of came forward later on once she had heard of the Kings Marriage to Widow Grey as Elizabeth Wydeville would of been called as I am sure she would of had support from her sister and brother in law. I think there might of been a promise of marriage but no actual marriage. In 15th Century law an actual promise of marriage could be counted as marriage.

All we really know is that Stillington was in the tower near the same time as Clarence. What the good Bishop were in the tower for might of been unconnected to Clarence but I tend to think Stillington was in on something to do with Clarence? I agree they might of been up to something.

I'll have to discuss Richard III use of his brothers supposed secret marriage when I get home from work.