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

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey Phil,
The evidence for the survival of Edward II appears over whelming. Paul Doherty has written an accessible book on the subject and it is covered in Ian Mortimer's The Greatest Traitor. Should you be interested.

Actually I am, I heard of Mortimer's Greatest Traitor and have his The Perfect King which is a life of Edward III. I read a study of Isabella back in 1999 by Doherty on Queen Isabella, which might be the book you are referring to, its been so long since I read it but I do remember that if was the first book not to vilify her or say that she went mad and was locked up by her son Edward III in Castle Rising in Norfolk.

Henry VII was a cold-blooded monster.
Yes, I agree with you there. Not that I am making excuses for Henry but, that was the product of his insecure childhood. Plus having to deal with all those pretenders or not pretenders probably did not help his disposition any.

Regarding Richard, I am re-reading Ashdown-Hill's Eleanor, The Secret Queen and I am willing to admit that there might of been a pre-contract between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Talbot Butler.

It does fit rather well Clarence and Bishop Stillington both ending up in the Tower Of London in 1478.

I have said before I read Daughter of Time and I also read the novels We Speak No Treason and The King's Grey Mare, both written by Rosemary Hawley Jarman, which both cast Richard in a heroic light. So I was first exposed to the Richard was innocent theory. It was only in my late teens that I was exposed to Richard was guilty theory.

Still I have to say that if for nothing else Richard would be found negligent in today's courts based on what evidence we do have as Edward V and Richard Duke Of York disappeared while in his custody. Now he Richard III might of killed them or he might not of. Really I am not the one to be arguing for or against Richards guilt not having any notes handy. I am doing this off the top of my head, so hope it doesn't show too badly. Still I had a lot of fun debating Richard's guilt. I am content too in that if Richard did kill the Princes in the Tower he paid for it and if Richard was innocent then he finally got his day in court back in 1984 and he is finally being exonerated by historians like you. The only ones I feel bad for are those youths who went into the Tower and were never seen again.

Actually I would of love it if they did survive as I really don't like the idea of them dying at the tender ages of 12 and 10 and then getting buried under the stairs. So this is one instance were I would be happy to be wrong.

I love Nero and Caligula. If you haven't read them already read the books Roman Passions and Pompeii, The Living City by Ray Laurence, the last one mentioned was written with Alex Butterwoth. Those two are my favorites.

[Phil H]

Semper Eadem

The Isabella book by Doherty is the one i had in mind. He is a good author.

I loved Rosemary Hawley Jarman's novels - delicate and well researched. Read them when they first came out, I hate to say. I was young then!!

Still I have to say that if for nothing else Richard would be found negligent in today's courts based on what evidence we do have as Edward V and Richard Duke Of York disappeared while in his custody.

Well, he wouldn't have been negligent if HE was the obne who sent them to safety, would he?

On the murder of Henry VI (assuming he did not die of sheer displeasure) then Richard would have acted, at most, as Lord High Constable, on the orders of his brother. I take it you are NOT referring to Richard having personally murdered the old king as per Shakespeare? He certainly did NOT do that - authority would have had to come from Edward IV himself.

The only ones I feel bad for are those youths who went into the Tower and were never seen again.

Richard (the younger boy) may have survived and died in old age, or been executed by Henry VII - as Perkin Warbeck. Another book that might interest you is: David Baldwin "The Lost Prince: The Survival of Richard of York" (2007). I think a p/back version was issued but I'm not certain.

getting buried under the stairs.

Don't believe thomas More - he was so confused he didn't know what he was writing.

I love Nero and Caligula. If you haven't read them already read the books Roman Passions and Pompeii, The Living City by Ray Laurence, the last one mentioned was written with Alex Butterwoth. Those two are my favorites.

It probably won't surprise you that i have unorthodox views on Gaius Caligula and Nero.

Both were direct descendents of Marcus Antonius and I believe there may have been a "family" policy based on a belief that a Hellenistic monarchy was required, as against the concealed tyranny of Augustus. Hence their love of display and their wishing to be treated as living gods. It's complex - involving the idea of the divine Dionysus, the cult of wine and Antonius' way of life. Gaius had a sharp satiric wit which explains many of his so called insane ideas. In some ways their ideas may have pre-dated those of Constantine by almost three centuries.

Pompeii and Herculaneum have studied in some depth. In know both sites well. If interested try to get hold of J J Deiss' book, Herculaneum (old now, but a terrific read) or anything by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill.

You argue well and I had thought you must have your notes with you. I too have worked from memory - hence my slip over the date of the Wydeville marriage earlier.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

I wanted to let you know that I received the DVD on Middleham Castle and have been enjoying watching it. Thanks once again for recommending it.

All the best

Chris

[Phil H]

I was worried you might NOT!! People's tastes can differ - though I was sure that it provided all i wanted/needed in such a dvd.

Thanks so much for letting me know.

My next purchase in that line will be the companion piece on Sandal Castle - a possession of RIII's father.

Phil

[Bridewell]

Expect more RIII books now his body has been found

One of my former colleagues has just published one entitled "Loyalty In Me Lieth". I've yet to read it, but it's said to be a first-person narrative.

[Phil H]

So its about Richard the first?

[AmmanValleyJack]

Why is Henry VII a "cold-blooded monster"?

[Phil H]

Why is Henry VII a "cold-blooded monster"?

I was using hyperbole - but I think a reasonable case, historically, can be made out for him being a cold fish.

He was miserly, unless splendour served his purpose. He appears to have been calculating, and to have allowed few people close. He would not have Elizabeth of York crowned til she had norne him a son.

But what was uppermost in my thought was his judicial killing of Warbeck and Warwick, his systematic pursuit (continued by his son) of anyone with Yorkist blood in their veins. His treatment (over years) of Katherine of Aragon - keeping her in near poverty so as to retain her dowry - is hardly kindly.

Also by comparison to (say) Edward IV - Henry can hardly be described as amorous, warm and cuddly, approachable or as having the common touch.

I know a case can be made on the other side, and I enjoyed reading the recent book "The Winter King" (the title itself says something) but I do not personally find Henry attractive in terms of personality or policy.

His mother, of course, was even worse - I always refer to Lady Margaret Beaufort as the original poisoned dwarf. She was capable of any treachery, single-minded and cold blooded. her son probably got his reptilian streak from her.

I do have a more balanced view of both as real people, but I DO enjoy being rude to those two. Just in revenge for what they did to Richard, who is something of a hero.

Phil

[Steve S]

I admit I have a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived picture of the Tudors as a "good thing"............

[Phil H]

On the whole the Tudor's forged modern England, but it doesn't mean I have to like them.

But the world they ruled had changed immeasurably from that of 1483....

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

On the whole the Tudor's forged modern England, but it doesn't mean I have to like them.

But the world they ruled had changed immeasurably from that of 1483....

Phil

I would agree that the Tudors laid the foundation for modern England and Britain come to that, since Elizabeth I died unmarried and childless and the next monarch, was succeeded by James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England, so uniting England and Scotland. I would agree also that they were ruthless in executing opponents. Look what happened to James' mother, Mary Queen of Scots, executed at Fotheringay Castle on the orders of Elizabeth I. We tend to think that some of the Tudors were good and even cuddly, rotund fun-loving Henry VIII as portrayed by Charles Laughton, the man who slew several of his wives, Good Queen Bess played as a strong monarch by such actresses as Glenda Jackson and Cate Blanchett. Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, who became Henry VII, was one of the blood thirstiest monarchs in British history even if he personally seems to have been a cold and bloodless individual.

Best regards

Chris

[Phil H]

Henry only killed TWO of his wives - Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard (both members of the Howard clan).

His basic problem, of course, was an heir - the lack of them was the curse of the Tudors. The spectre, the reoccurrence of dynastic wars.

Henry was desperate for an heir - Katherine of Aragon was his wife for the vast majority of his reign and had many miscarriages. She bore him a living daughter (Mary) but at that time no woman had ever ruled England as Queen regnant. Katherine had to go -political necessity.

Boleyn again bore a daughter (Elizabeth) but no living son - so Henry tried again with Jane Seymour - who gave him his longed-for heir (Edward) , but died as a result.

Anne of Cleves was a political marriage which was senseless and did not last - may not have been consummated. Catherine Howard was a silly minx who took lovers (perhaps to try to get an hair. She was executed.

Catherine Parr outlived him.

If Katherine of Aragon could have given Henry one or more sons I am sure he would have remained happily married to her for as long as either one lived.

Contrary to popular myth, Henry was a moral man and only ever took one mistress at a time.

As to heirs, Henry VII had two living sons, one of whom (Arthur) died young. So the dynasty was dependent upon a single male child (Henry VIII). Henry VIII had only one surviving son who died young. Mary had no children and Elizabeth likely none either (there are rumours of one by Leicester but probably untrue).

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

Thanks for the clarification on how many wives Henry VIII executed. As you say it was only two, although somehow, given the reputation of the man, it seems more. But as you say "several" as I said is incorrect. As one definition of "several" goes: Two is a "couple" and more than two or three is several.

Best regards

Chris

[Cogidubnus]

We used to be taught the little jingle:-

"Divorced, beheaded, died
Divorced, beheaded, survived"

Don't I recall from somewhere that the Flemish Mare remained in England after the divorce and attended court as a friend and confidante?

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Anna von Cleve/Anne of Cleves (the Flemish mare) became Henry's "beloved sister" after their divorce.

She remained in England, and died shortly before Elizabeth came to the throne. Anne is buried close to the high altar of Westminster Abbey.

The question used to be asked - did Holbein fall in love with her and paint her as he saw her, as a beauty, or did he just use artistic licence? Novels were written along those lines which my mother absolutely loved.

Phil