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

[bkohatl]

I have recently been fascinated by the logic of burying King Richard III in Leicester.

King Richard III's body was stripped naked and mutilated and then displayed in Leicester before being dumped in a grave there.

Accounts from the battlefield of Bosworth, whether Yorkist or Lancastrian, describe King Richard as being a ferocious fighter and the bravest man on the battlefield that day. When confronted with the treachery of the Stanleys(for which they were well paid, by Henry Tudor), King Richard chose to charge Henry Tudor who chose to remain behind his phalanx of mercenary bodyguard. King Richard cut a wide swathe through Henry's bodyguard, personally felling Henry's standard bearer; some sources attribute 5 knights fallen in Richard's quest to reach Henry.

Richard's wife, Anne lies buried in an unmarked grave in Westminster Abbey, hardly a fitting burial for a Queen of England and daughter of one of the most Earls in the Kingdom, Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick(The Kingmaker). His son, Edward of Middleham, has a cenotaph, but his remains lie in an unmarked grave in Sheriff Hutton. This seems hardly appropriate for a Prince of Wales.

Though some residents of York have suggested that Richard, his wife, Anne, and his son, Edward, all should be buried together.

No one at Leicester has made this suggestion in regard to Leicester.

Of few facts there is little dispute about King Richard III, one is that he was a loving husband and father. Anne was devoted to her husband and it was her son's death which contributed to her death. Beside the treachery of the Stanleys, it is argued that the deaths of wife and son led King Richard courage on the Battlefield of Bosworth.

King Richard III was a devout Catholic. He is universally described as a sincere and pious man. In his personal library were a great many religious books. Extraordinary for the time they contain personal notes and commentary from Richard, indicating that the actually read these books and contemplated their meaning.

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.

Leicester has indicated that King Richard III should be buried in Leicester Cathedral. A church built in the 1800's and consecrated as a Anglican Church. Needless to say Richard never attended this church, nor practiced the Anglican Faith.

The people of York point out that Richard attended services in York Minster. He also paid for expensive repairs and expansions there as well. For hundreds of years it was a Catholic Church. There is some evidence that Richard intended that he, his wife and child should be buried there.

Of course, allowing someone to be buried with his wife and son, in a place of choosing would never be the right thing to do and think of all the money that is to be made in Leicester Disneyland.

[bkohatl]

Quotes about King Richard III

"His courage also high and fierce, which failed him not in the very death". - Polydor Vergil, Historian, 1520


"Such was his renown in warfare, that when ever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his generalship". - Dominic Mancini, 1483


"In his small body the greatest valor held sway". - Archibald Whitelaw, 1484


"For in the thick of the fight, and not in the act of flight, King Richard fell in the field, struck by many mortal wounds, as a bold and most valiant prince". - Croyland Chronicle Continuator, 1486


"King Richard alone was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies". - Polydor Vergil

[Phil H]

Richard's motto was "Loyalty binds me".

As a C15th successful politician (which he was) he had to have been capable of the murder of his nephews - whether he did kill them we may never learn. That enigma will always overshadow Richard III's reputation.

I have studied his life for over 40 years - around the same time as I have been interested in JtR - and I perceive him as a man of honour and integrity, a loyal brother and friend, a brave and Christian man.

I never expected to see his body rediscovered, and I welcome that finding beyond measure. Leicester nursed him, albeit unawares for most of the time - for nigh on 500 years. I think he deserves re-internment within a few paces of where he rested all that time.

His wife, by the way now HAS a proper grave bearing her arms in Westminster Abbey.

York has no legitimate claims on Richard (I listed several other places equally appropriate in another thread) - Fotheringhay (his birthplace); or Middleham (allegedly his favorite home) would be more suitable IMHO.

Richard was never DUKE of York (he was a member of the family of the Dukes of York - son of one, brother of another, uncle to a third; great uncle to a fourth). He never lived in the city, and left no clear evidence of an intent to be buried there.

By the way, Leicester took the opportunity, when it arose, to search for the King's body. they have the legal right to chose the place of re-burial.

Your cynicism is both misplaced and unappreciated by this admirer of richard II.

By the way, unless you can pojint to your source, where did you find the following?:

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 know something of the life of henry VIII and have never seen that before, and question both the logic and authority of the allegation.

For someone who appears to think highly of Richard, you appear to have an odd way of showing it bkohatl.

Phil

[bkohatl]

In college my Professor Dr. Joseph Baylen, Georgia State University

In Defence of the Seven Sacraments(credited to Henry VIII) section of Wikipedia indicates suspicions that Thomas More had a hand in writing the original composition, this is somewhat reinforced by the fact that it was Thomas More who replied to Henry's "original composition", not Henry, when challenged by Martin Luther.

Luther's reply to the Assertio was, in turn, replied to by Thomas More, who was then Henry's Lord Chancellor and one of the leaders of the Catholic humanist party in England.
Wikipedia


Dr. Baylen was chairman of the History Department at Georgia State University. I remember that we had a discussion as to whether Julius Caesar's Gallic War was in fact written by him. The general consensus is, absolutely, but the Civil War Commentary was as much a collaborative effort:

Caesar's authorship of the Commentarii de Bello Civili is not disputed. However, its continuations on the Alexandrian, African and Hispanic wars are believed to have been written by others: the 2nd century historian Suetonius suggested Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Oppius as possible authors.
Wikipedia

[Chris]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A1eI1EpPV7oC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68

[Errata]

Contrary to whatever claims have been made, Henry VIII became Defender of the Faith for one reason and one reason only. His wife was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, daughter of the most powerful rulers in Europe. Consequently when the Italian Wars started (an affair the Pope was keenly interested in the outcome of), the Holy Roman Emperor Maxmillian I (the father of Catherine's brother-in-law) got involved, and recruited his son's father-in-law Ferdinand II and Ferdinand's son-in-law, Henry VIII. The title "Defender of the Faith" was given to both Henry and Catherine because as English monarchs were not members of the Holy Roman Empire. It's a distinguished foreigner award. The title was given to them before Henry ever published his treatise. It's a family affair, and the only reason it sounds as complex as it does is because it revolves around Ferdinand II's surfeit of daughters.

[bkohatl]

Murky waters indeed, but Truth is the Daughter of Time

Murky waters in deed and indeed. The whole point of the class that I referenced was that things are seldom as they initially seem. The international politics of the situation had a great deal to do with it. But I was making a point on a personal level, Henry claimed authorship, but after his divorce from Katherine of Aragon, so he could marry Anne Boleyn, he attributed it to others, specifically Thomas More.

I remember in the same class we were talking about Oliver Cromwell and the fact that he exterminated one third of the population of Ireland, which certainly qualifies as genocide. But to many English/Scots he was a champion of liberty. There are limits to credulity. And he has never been a hero of mine. But two groups see the same man as absolute opposites, the devil or a saint.

Ask an Irishman about Cromwell that torturing and murdering children and babies is not the act of a liberator. It is futile to argue to argue differently. I remember a class assignment to see how the English Press covered and/or justified the export of food from Ireland to England while one million Irish were starving to death during the Potato Famine.

A Man For All Seasons is one of the greatest movies ever made and certainly Robert Bolt is the greatest playwright/screen writer of the 20th Century. Everything about it was magnificent. I remember Paul Scofield didn't go to Hollywood for the Oscars, because he intended to train their new puppy. Paul Scofield lived in Andy Warhol's world, but every night he rode the train home to his wife and children, because, as he said, they were what really mattered to him. That is exactly the kind of man who should betray Thomas More.

I apologize for going so far afield, but this seems to be just one more injustice inflicted on Richard III.

There is one piece of evidence in the matter which should be troubling to any Tudor Loyalist(I, myself, have Welsh Blood). Henry Stafford is described in a contemporary document now in the Ashmolean Museum discovered by historian Richard Firth Green in the 1980's.

If Richard was responsible for killing the Princes in the Tower, the murders may have caused Buckingham to change sides. On the other hand, Buckingham himself had motives to kill the Princes, having a claim of his own to the throne equivalent to that of Henry Tudor, depending on one's view of the legitimacy of the Beaufort line. According to a manuscript discovered in the early 1980s in the College of Arms collection, the Princes were murdered "be [by] the vise" of the Duke of Buckingham. There is some argument over whether "vise" means "advice" or "devise".[4] According to this perspective, if Buckingham killed the Princes and blamed Richard, he could form a rebellion, putting the throne into play with only Henry Tudor as a rival. Indeed, he was one of the leaders of a rebellion, ostensibly in favour of Henry Tudor, in October 1483. However, the rebellion was quickly crushed and Buckingham executed. Henry Tudor would succeed in defeating Richard III two years later.
Wikipedia

A contemporary document implies that it was the Duke of Buckingham as Constable of the Tower who starved the boys to death.

There are some historians who hold that either the Duke of Buckingham on his own or in collusion with Henry Tudor murdered the Princes. Which would explain Henry Tudor(VII) rather bizarre handling of the missing Princes before and after he assumed the crown, especially in regard to waiting 20 years to accuse the actual murderer, James Tyrrell, 20 years after the crime and only after the two had had a falling out. Strange and bizarre.


I am grateful to Elizabeth Mackintosh (Josephine Tey) for her wonderful book "The Daughter of Time", which I read when I twelve. Definitely murky waters, but Ms. Mackintosh is right, the story as told in history books doesn't add up.

One more thing to bear in mind, though Richard was an opponent of the Woodvilles, the boys mother, Elizabeth Woodville, was never one of Richard's accusers. Funny thing, almost all sources said that she never liked or got along with Henry VII, who ultimately forced her into a nunnery. Though there was much dispute about this among historians.

[Phil H]

bkohatl

I still don't have a clue to where you are coming from.

It has LONG been known that Thomas More (long before he was Chancellor) assisted Henry with his "book". But I do not see any answer to my question - what was the origin of your assertion that it was plagiarised from material originating with Richard III?????

Caesar's Gallic Wars and Cromwell in Ireland might be interesting but are also irrlelvent.

Jospehine Tey (great book love it and chreish my copy) is based on Clements Markham's overly partial defence of Richard. It is now outdated and should be used with care.

Paul Scofield ...is exactly the kind of man who should betray Thomas More.

I assume you meant "portray".

More, as I have said elsewhere was a hypocritical and self-serving s**t. He did unto others (people he regarded as heretics) what later was done unto him. BUT he was offered a number of "get out of jail" cards which would have avoided his death, but he refused them, thus being almost a suicide rather than a martyr. More's book on Richard is misinformed, incomplete, and self-contradictory. the man deserves NO honour.

On the death of the prince's, whether Buckingham "dunnit" or not, Richard had their charge and he must bear responsibility - ASSUMING THEY DIED. There is not a shred of evidence, other than ab silencio, that they died. From Henry VII's reactions during various risings in support of pretenders, especially Perkin Warbeck, HE did not know the truth. It is QUITE POSSIBLE that the boys were taken to a place of safety in secret.

Circumstantially one can ask why - if Richard or Buckingham - killed the boys, why was their cousin Edward of Warwick left alive? Edward was equally related to Richard (nephew) was a son of his elder brother - George of Clarence - and thus had a senior claim to the throne over Richard's. True his father had been attainted, but there was a Parliamentary bar on the two boys as well. If one could be reversed, so could the other. Yet Edward lived to be executed by Henry VII!!! Odd that!

I increasingly look to Lady Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mother) - and a poisoned dwarf if history ever knew one - as a possible killer of the boys (assuming they died then). the two former princes were much more of a problem to HVII - who wanted to legitimise their sister - than to Richard after all.

There seems to have been some sort of conventional wisdom after 1485 that something had happened to Edward (ex the V) as the pretenders seem to all have acted as Richard (ex of York). Simnel and his backers couldn't make up their minds!! But Edward could have died of natural causes.

On Buckingham's rebellion, make sure you have the dates right. I think you'll find that the rising began BEFORE rumours of the "murders" became current. Also it was NOT Buckingham's rebellion in any real sense, he JOINED a rising by former household members of Edward IV in the south.

The rebellion was against a perceived take-over by northeners, brought in with him by Richard; and also a protest against the loss of secure jobs by those who had backed the Wydevilles and Edward V and lost. Look at the identities and former roles of the rebels.

Phil

[bkohatl]

St. Thomas More

Aye, there is the rub. You don't like Thomas More, who was in his private life was above approach. I disagree with some of the things he did, he truly believed in what he did. In his legal career, up to including his Chancellorship, was above reproach. As Robert Bolt says, he was a man who never pilfered the Kingdom in his rise to power.

In 1521, Henry VIII published Assertio septem sacramentorum (Defense of the seven sacraments). Ghost-written by Thomas More, the pope rewarded Henry with the title of Defensor Fidei (Defender of the Faith).

http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-08.

Always remember Archbishop Cranmer(Anne Boleyn's personal chaplain) and Chancellor Cromwell used this accusation by the King, that it was More's work, not Henry's to persecute Thomas More before the perjury of Richard Rich who was rewarded with the Chancellorship. I consider it more than a little ironic that Queen Elizabeth still retains the title Defender of the Faith bestowed by Pope Leo X. Any history of More's trial will show how Henry repeatedly disowned the book.

And all for Anne Boleyn.

Bringing this discussion back to King Richard, one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the prejudice and conventional history against him, is the fact that Thomas More never published his History of King Richard III. Many historians, including myself, believe that he refused to publish it because he came to the conclusion that the information that he had received and based the work on, was in fact not true. There is a school of thought that the work itself was More copying a diatribe(certainly not history) of fanatic Lancastrian and enemy of King Richard, Cardinal Morton wrote it.

[Phil H]

bkohatl

I do not need to remember anything about Richard III. I have been studying his life and character for 40 + years!!

On More, it is no a case of liking him or not. He was a bastard as any examination of his life will show. Herer was a man who kept his wife illiterate, persecuted heretics and was far less of a great man than say Wolsey - one of the greatest statemen England ever had (also buried in Leicester btw).

More is far from the goody-goody depicted in Robert Bolt's play - on which you seem to depend a lot. Great play: poor history!

I disagree with some of the things he did, he truly believed in what he did.

No doubt much the same could be said of Hitler or genghiz Khan - hardly a convincing argument.

In 1521, Henry VIII published Assertio septem sacramentorum (Defense of the seven sacraments). Ghost-written by Thomas More, the pope rewarded Henry with the title of Defensor Fidei (Defender of the Faith).

Do yuo really think King's have time to write their own speeches and treatises?

Besides, the title - while an excuse was found to bestow it - was simply to ensure that the English king had a title to match his continental counterparts:

the king of France was The Most Chritian King; the kings of Spain were His Most Catholic Majesty; and of course the ruler of Austria/Burgundy/Flandersd et was Holy Roman Emperor. the title was retained after the reformation to denote Henry's new role as Head of the Church in England, but this was clearly different from a title granted to him by a pope who's authority he no longer recognised.

I consider it more than a little ironic that Queen Elizabeth still retains the title Defender of the Faith bestowed by Pope Leo X.

Any irony explained above. If/when he becomes king, Price charles apparently wants to be known as "Defender of Faiths" - to recognise another changed role in a multifaith realm.

And all for Anne Boleyn.

I didn't know her personally.

Bringing this discussion back to King Richard, one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the prejudice and conventional history against him, is the fact that Thomas More never published his History of King Richard III.

Utterly irrelevant to anything. More's book (incomplete in either version) is not a source worth considering except as a version of the Tudor myth. though we now know that Richard was deformed, something more recent Ricardians have tried to deny.

Many historians, including myself, believe that he refused to publish it because he came to the conclusion that the information that he had received and based the work on, was in fact not true.

Well since he gets basic facts like the death of Edward IV wrong, we can see that.

There is a school of thought that the work itself was More copying a diatribe(certainly not history) of fanatic Lancastrian and enemy of King Richard, Cardinal Morton wrote it.

Clements Markham again. True More was a page in Morton's household, but one has to ask why as a boy Morton should have entrusted the manuscript to him. There were other historians active at the tudor court.

Secondly, prove either on internal or external grounds that this was based on a work by Morton (if not written but told orally by Morton, then at best it can only be hearsay on More's part).

It WILL NOT DO to try to excuse criticism of Richard III by saying that it was his enemies who abused him - rumours that he had killed the boys were around in his lifetime; he WAS deformed; he did execute Hastings etc on apparently flimsy grounds. That has nothing to do with Morton or anyone else.

Richard emerges from the context of his life and works. That is a soild foundation which I recommend.

Finally you have still not explained your initial allegation that Richard somehow wrote a book More plagiarised.

While that stands without explanation I will not take seriously anything you say.

Further, why did you feel the need to disparage Leicester so strongly?

Phil

[bkohatl]

Cardinal Morton wrote the book which Thomas More Kept

I never said Richard plagiarized anyone. He was considered very honest. As Elizabeth M/Josephine Tey indicated the story doesn't make sense as it has been presented. She was right, now that we are learning the truth, Richard becomes more human, credible and a champion for the poor.

I have more faith in Robert Bolt than you. He did represent a point of view, but tried very hard to tell the true story.

Of course, the discrepancy was used against Thomas More by Cranmer and Cromwell, coupled with the perjury of Richard Rich led to the execution of a Saint.
My opinions here are shared by a lot of people and I assume that you've heard them before.

Many people cite "More's" history as historic fact, which it wasn't. If written by Cardinal Morton, the prejudice and dishonesty makes sense. Thomas More never presented the history as his, it was an assumption by Tudor propagandists after they beheaded St. Thomas, based on the perjury of Richard Rich. And remember he was rewarded with Chancellorship of England for his perjury.

I wonder if Archbishop Cranmer knew of his perjury and justified the ends justifies the means.
I love the irony of Henry VIII executing Cromwell, then finding that no one stole money as well as he did.

[bkohatl]

Honor and character

When Henry VIII agreed with it, he wrote it. When he didn't it was ghost written by Thomas More.
You are right speeches are written, but you can't have it both ways.

I always think of Katherine Howard screaming trying to reach Henry after Cranmer and Cromwell went after for political reasons.
The source of the accusation was a ally of Cranmer and torture is such a great way to find the truth.

[Phil H]

I think bkohatl that you rely too much on plays, traditions and outdated ideas.

As far as I am aware, Katherine Howard (stupid bitch) could never have reached Henry because he wasn't at Hampton Court at the time!

To rely on a play and not sources or modern scholarship to get a view of anyone is hardly to be recommended.

My opinions here are shared by a lot of people and I assume that you've heard them before.

Many people cite "More's" history as historic fact, which it wasn't.

They may have done 40 years ago, they don't today. No serious historian would regard More as a reliable, or even a possible source, EXCEPT in regard to the Tudor myth. Those with an axe to grind sometimes cite his description of the burial of the bodies, but as that is inconsistent, it says as much about the authors who use it as about More.

If written by Cardinal Morton, the prejudice and dishonesty makes sense.

Why? Because Morton opposed Richard? So did many people - the Stanleys, Lady Mmargaret Beaufort, the Wydevilles, Reginald Bray, to name but a few - why not accuse them of inspiring More? Lady BM outlived Morton and would have been older for thomas more to have met. But because tey cites Morton (based on Markham) you stick with it I guess. Dangerous interpreting history through detective novels.

Thomas More never presented the history as his, it was an assumption

He wrote two versions, one in English, one in Latin, both differ. No other manuscipt was found. Why assume he had to base it on something. And he specifically mentions things "I" have seen - such as an aged Jane Lambert/Shore.

I have seen it argued that More, in a humanist way, was attacking the government of Henry VII, and did it in a covert way by coding it as about RIII - the "deliberate" mistakes were to alert people to the trick. I don't accept that but I quote it for the record.

On plagiarisation, you wrote:

King Richard III was a devout Catholic. He is universally described as a sincere and pious man. In his personal library were a great many religious books. Extraordinary for the time they contain personal notes and commentary from Richard, indicating that the actually read these books and contemplated their meaning.

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.

Surely you must admit that juxtaposing those two ideas, does give the appearance of linking them? I see now what you meant, but you were not clear - at least to me.

[Errata]

I wouldn't count out Henry as the author of the Seven Sacraments. He was after all extremely well educated and was strong in his faith. Something that did not even waver after his breaking with Catholicism. Also, he wasn't trained to be king. He had a lot of people doing a lot of his jobs for him, a habit he didn't break until Cromwell and the Anne of Cleves debacle. He made the big decisions, but left the little stuff to others. He was not an administrative king. Not until later. And he HATED Luther. Most kings did, since Luther's followers were all about seizing freedom from nobility, which eventually culminated in the Peasants War. That's just bad for business. Publishing a little tract that pleased the Pope and insulted Luther and his followers was really kind of Henry's style.

[Phil H]

Henry VIII was lazy- he hated writing. On th other hand he was, as you say errata, well-educated, interested in theology and more than reasonably intelligent - all the Tudors were (look at Elizabeth I).

Of course, in writing his theological work, Henry sought assistance from scholars and experts. He was close to More at that time. Would anyone (let alone a King) publish a work - certainly one addressed to the Pope - and which would attract world-wide attention - without checking that "i"s were dotted etc (grammatically and in terms of content? I doubt it. That's what Henry did. How much of the content was his own, I don't know.

Phil