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

[Beowulf]

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


Phil

But the truth is all you EVER can take is one mistress at a time

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey Phil,
Sorry I am late getting back. I know the discussion has moved on I just had a query or two.

On the murder of Henry VI (assuming he did not die of sheer displeasure) Hahaha, I just loved how the Yorkist spin machine handled that one.

Sandal Castle had a bloody history to it. That was the castle the Duke of York issued forth to fight that deadly doomed battle with the Lancastern forces even though he was vastly outnumbered. sad to say, as I am sure you know Phil and probably Chris too he was killed in battle and had his head cut off from his body and displayed to the town of York along with his second born son Edmund, Earl of Rutland who was murdered by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge before having his head also struck from his body to join his father at the gates of York. Salisbury, York's brother-in-law and the father of Warwick the Kingmaker was also beheaded so his head could also join York's head.

I always wondered given the brutality of the age if there might of been an unrecorded Jack The Ripper running around England at this time. I've tried to look for any medieval serial killings but have not come up against any unless you count Giles de Rais and perhaps the Earl of Tiptoft, who was hated and feared by the English populace due to the horrific methods of execution he employed. You just know the good or should I say not so good Earl Of Tiptoft had to be a savage fellow to earn such condemnation from the chroniclers and from the general populace, yep even the nobles in that bloody age as I have said. Anyways getting back to my query, I have wondered if perhaps a soldier back from the French wars might of became a serial killer after becoming addicted to violence.

[Semper_Eadem]

Yes Phil is right Henry was quite a prude compared to his contemporary Francis I who had a bakers dozen of Mistress, unlike Francis, Henry also conducted his affairs pretty secretly at first. Francis paraded his mistresses for the world to see while Henry while deploring Francis conduct never the less did the same thing but on the sly which made him to seem like a more moral man but in truth just made him a hypocrite.

Elizabeth I could be brutal indeed, she locked her own cousin Catherine Grey, sister of tragic Jane up for life after the poor silly girl made a love match with Edward Seymour II, the son of the Duke Of Somerset and former Protector, who lost his head. Edward Seymour the younger was a maternal cousin of the late King Edward VI. Interestingly Edward and Catherine's secret marriage was witnessed by Edward's sister Jane, who was probably named for her late aunt Queen Jane Seymour. sadly when Elizabeth I found out about the said secret marriage she hit the roof and locked Catherine up until her death, first in the tower until sympathetic jailer let Catherine see her husband with the result that she became pregnant again! After she bore Edward Seymour their second son both were sent to different areas of England. Edward was released after Catherine death to fit for the validity of their marriage, so his sons could be counted as legitimate.

However on the other side Catherine Grey made some ill advised steps such as consulting with the Spanish Ambassador de Feria on her chances of being named heir to the throne and carrying herself about the court imperviously.

Speaking for myself I like the Tudors. I studied them right along with the cousins war. I lost interest in English history at the dawn of the Stuart Age. Which is why you all don't see me around here much.

[Steve S]

Stuarts are when it starts to get really interesting...The lower sorts start to play a part......

[Phil H]

The lower sorts start to play a part......

But isn't democracy boring...?

Such a shame the lower orders weren't put back in their place...

Not really, just joking. I've never liked social history though - all that grime and squalor!! Give me nobleman, a horsewhip and nice clothes any time.

Phil

[Phil H]

I think serial killing is an post-industrial revolution phenomenon. It's a product of large numbers of people packed together and social alienation.

Medieval town and villages were small and family groups would quickly spot any deviant tendencies among their members. Those with mental problems might be found an appropriate and satisfying job - thus "Will isn't bright, but he's good with animals, so he works in the lord's stables" etc etc.

I'm not saying there weren't sadists and killers (two bodies from Roman times were found buried under a floor on Hadrian's Wall, one with the broken tip of a blade in his ribs). But I think murder was probably linked to robbery or rage, war or organised crime (piracy/outlawry). In war unspeakable acts were done, even by the order of kings and senior commanders, but that is not serial killing in my book.

On the death of the Earl of Salisbury, he was captured and put into Pontefract Castle. According to one account the peasantry broke him out and executed him on the spot because he was so hated locally. So NOT a battle fatality but a lynching.

I have a soft spot for Salibury, whom I see as a solid and loyal royal councillor and fighter, though probably a stern and remote landlord.

Phil

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Steve, You do make a point. I find myself from time to time looking at the reign of Charles II with an interested eye. Those halcyon Restoration days do make for interesting reading.

Hey Phil, that was what I thought too on serial killers. If there were Serial killers back then he or she must of did their killing in different villages or in one of the bigger cities and had their crimes escape detection.

As for Salisbury I tend to throw him in with York and Rutland. That is very remiss of me. I need to restudy him. All I really know about him is that he was the son of Ralph Neville by his Beaufort wife Joan, who was the daughter of John Of Gaunt and his third wife and one of the major loves of his life, Katherine Roet, the Herald's daughter.

[Phil H]

Katherine Ret or Swynford, lived during her first marriage near my home town, Lincoln, and lived in widowhood in a house in the Cathedral Close. I know her tomb and that of Joan well.

The Nevilles are an interesting family Old Ralph had two wives and numerous children by both (somewhere in excess of 20 in all IIRC).

But he left his estates - though not the title of Earl of Westmoreland - to his second family. Hence a deep set rivalry or feud between the two branches that contributed significantly to the outbreak of civil war.

Of the second family, I think offhand that two daughters married dukes - Buckingham, and York. Salisbury married a significant heiress, and his son, another Richard, in turn married the Warwick heiress, gaining the Beauchamp inheritance and his title.

Before speculating about medieval serial killers, I'd first need to see a potential case cited. If you are interested, Games Workshop once did a fantasy novel set in their Warhammer world which involved a medieval style serial killer.

Phil

[Steve S]

The lower sorts start to play a part......

But isn't democracy boring...?

Such a shame the lower orders weren't put back in their place...

Not really, just joking. I've never liked social history though - all that grime and squalor!! Give me nobleman, a horsewhip and nice clothes any time.

Phil

But I like it when the lower orders play a part with Pike or Musket....A nice kick-ass Republican army..............And I think I've read that Warhammer one.........

[Steve S]

Hi Steve, You do make a point. I find myself from time to time looking at the reign of Charles II with an interested eye. Those halcyon Restoration days do make for interesting reading.

Hey Phil, that was what I thought too on serial killers. If there were Serial killers back then he or she must of did their killing in different villages or in one of the bigger cities and had their crimes escape detection.

As for Salisbury I tend to throw him in with York and Rutland. That is very remiss of me. I need to restudy him. All I really know about him is that he was the son of Ralph Neville by his Beaufort wife Joan, who was the daughter of John Of Gaunt and his third wife and one of the major loves of his life, Katherine Roet, the Herald's daughter.

When you look at how corrupt Charlie's Government turned out to be,we must have been REALLY desperate to have him back..........

[Phil H]

I see (BBC BReakfast this morning) that the so-called descendents of RIII are beginning their legal fight to have him buried at York.

I don't think they have any chance of success, but I'd be interested to know who is funding their legal costs.

I know that immediate families have rights where on burying their relation where (say) a common law partner would not (or used not to have). But I have never heard of descendents through many generations having any rights over burial whatsoever - though they might have in regard to inheritance of land or property.

Be interesting to see how quickly the case for York is slung out.

Phil

[Monty]

I refrained from posting on this thread due to its insulting title and early provocation, although it was a good job I was suspended at the time also.....otherwise.

Anyway, these people are not descendents of Richard III. They are what is termed legally as Collateral Descendents, not of direct line from Richard but from his siblings and cousins, 2nd, 3rd etc.

I do wish the BBC will paint the full picture instead of drawning a sensaltionalistic outline. Then again, they are a common version of Sky nowadays.

Monty


PS Phil, sorry, but to clarify, they state their legal fight is to have a consultation, not to to be buried at York. However it is quite clear their true intentions are to have him reinterred their, despite the fact he never expressed any wish to be.

[Jenni Shelden]

Exactly,
he didnt have any decendants, his legitimate and potentiall illegitimate children all died without having issue
Jenni

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Phil,

Katherine Ret or Swynford, lived during her first marriage near my home town, Lincoln, and lived in widowhood in a house in the Cathedral Close. I know her tomb and that of Joan well. Oh your from Lincoln. I bet you do know her tomb well. She did live in a house in the Cathedral close when she wasn't at Kettlethorpe, I remember reading in Weirs Mistress Of The Monarchy/ The Scandalous Duchess that the house she lived in was supposed to go to a Rector of the Cathedral but she was in it so the rector had to wait until she moved to take possession and the didn't get it when she moved as another lady moved in. I think it was one of the Grey family. I always felt bad for that poor rector wanting to get in his house

The Nevilles are an interesting family Old Ralph had two wives and numerous children by both (somewhere in excess of 20 in all IIRC).

I think it was 22, I'm real good at remembering dates and numbers and I believe that Earl Ralph had 22, which would make us roll our eyes until we remember that couple usually had about 8-10 children as there wasn't any birth control. The minimum age the girl had to be for the consummation of a marriage according to the Church was 12 years. Of course there were exceptions, usually I think whether a marriage was consummated when a girl was married or not at 12 had to do with whether she was menstruating or not and how nubile she was. Some girls could end up in a grave within the space of a year due to marriage and childbirth gone wrong.

Joan Beaufort was married to Robert Ferres Baron of Wem as her first husband, they had a daughter and then he died. By this time John Of Gaunt Joan's father had his children with Katherine Roet legitimized and Joan was the daughter of the Mighty Duke of Lancaster so I bet ambitious Ralph Neville was quite eager to marry her. Probably pressed his suit with a red hot iron as the saying goes.

But he left his estates - though not the title of Earl of Westmoreland - to his second family. Hence a deep set rivalry or feud between the two branches that contributed significantly to the outbreak of civil war.

He did indeed. I think he did it because he thought that the children from his second marriage being of more dynastic importance in the scheme of things being as they were related via their mother to the House Of Lancaster needed those lands and revenue.

Of the second family, I think offhand that two daughters married dukes - Buckingham, and York. Salisbury married a significant heiress, and his son, another Richard, in turn married the Warwick heiress, gaining the Beauchamp inheritance and his title.

Richard Neville Jr marrying Anne Beaucamp and getting that tile was a happy bit of luck. They married when they were 10 and 8 in 1428 while Anne's brother was still alive. He marries in 1440 and has a daughter in 1442. The brother dies and his daughter dies so Aunt Anne get the Warwick title. So Richard Neville didn't marry the Warwick heiress but had extremely good luck, well until 1471 anyways.

Before speculating about medieval serial killers, I'd first need to see a potential case cited. If you are interested, Games Workshop once did a fantasy novel set in their Warhammer world which involved a medieval style serial killer.

That's the problem we don't have a case of one. I think if there was one as I said he moved around a lot so no two victims were in the same place or they might not have died the same way which kind of takes away branding some murder as a serial killer. I just always thought it would of made an interesting novel. Alas I don't write

Geo~

[Semper_Eadem]

When you look at how corrupt Charlie's Government turned out to be,we must have been REALLY desperate to have him back..........

Yeah Steve S, You do have a good point.