murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

A Time for Truth, a Time for Lies…or for Pretended Obliviousness and Bullying Tactics

Riding the medieval pre-contract horse into the ground.

Riding the medieval pre-contract horse into the ground.

 My thanks to everyone at Murrey & Blue who helped with this article. It was very much a team effort, and you know who you are.

An Elizabethan Professor Introduced Me to Richard

A long time ago, at a university far away, I took a class on medieval history from a professor who thought Elizabeth I walked on water. He assigned a paper, and I didn’t know what to write about. He suggested Richard III, about whom I knew nothing. Our text didn’t mention him, and the professor’s lectures hadn’t, either, so off I went to the uni library to correct that deficit in my education. There are times I’m grateful to him. There are other times I wish he’d given me another, less controversial subject to write on.

The first source I consulted was Thomas More. Because hey, he was a knight and a saint, and surely he could be trusted? Ten minutes in, I had the same reaction to him that I had to Frank Harris’s biography on Oscar Wilde: This reads like backstairs gossip. I went looking for other sources. And thus I learned that all sources are not alike, and the difference goes far beyond whether a source is primary or secondary.

There are historians and other writers whose research and conclusions you can trust when it comes to Richard III, and there are those you have to approach with squinty eyes. You stick the latter’s work under a mental microscope because their research and their conclusions are suspect, if not twisted, by a prior agenda, or by the ruler under which they wrote, or because they must publish or die as an academic and have to adhere to whichever slant is fashionable at the time. Seldom do you find a gem in the form of independent researcher who has the time and the independence to research original 15th-century documents, relay the facts, and doesn’t twist what they find into personal fantasy.

I learned to appreciate and respect the gems, and to treat the others like especially nasty viruses because their brand of Whisper-Down-the-Alley tended to replicate itself in books, articles, treatises, and novels from the 1500s on down to the present day.

In that long ago time, I had only to contend with academic journals and library holdings. Now there’s The Internet, which provides a whole other world-stage for untrustworthy writers and bloggers who do sloppy or selective research on Richard III, slap down some sentences, upload them to their blog, and want to call it Case Closed. I learned that even if someone considers themselves an historian – armchair or otherwise – they often write with personal prejudice. A few of these writers are mean and nasty, grow bully-fangs, and sharpen their teeth on those who don’t agree with them.

It would go so much better for these people if they could frame a proper argument, but most of them can’t. Come to that, most don’t even quote their sources. Perhaps they can’t be bothered. Perhaps they don’t know how to use citations. Perhaps they’re happy to shout their position over and over – as if they do it often and long enough, their selective stance will become The Absolute Truth – in blog post after blog post. Perhaps they’re just happy hiding behind a computer and thwack anyone who challenges what they say.

Silly bloggers. There are no Absolute Truths when it comes to history. Any history, not just Richard’s. The fun is in the debate, but some people don’t know how to have fun, except by bullying others.

Before Shooting Yourself in the Pre-Contract Foot, You May Want to Do Your Research

If you’re wise, you’ll stop reading this article and go read Annette Carson’s blog post entitled, “Proof … evidence … report … gossip … rumour,” and then get thee a copy of her Richard III: The Maligned King.

Remember how I said above that there are historians and other writers whose research and conclusions you can trust when it comes to Richard III? You can trust Annette Carson. Why? Because she’s a respected professional who lives up to her own words:

I always urge interested enquirers to research for themselves and not take my word for anything. My book Richard III: The Maligned King makes a serious effort to enumerate and summarize as many relevant sources as possible so that readers may consult them and reach their own conclusions.

Another blog post to examine regarding proof vs. evidence of the goings-on in the spring of 1483 and how to frame a proper argument regarding same is Matthew Lewis’s “Evidence, Evidence, Evidence.”

If you’re still with me (oh, Foolish Mortal), then onward we go, to beat a very dead horse called “The Pre-contracted Marriage of Edward IV.”

I’ve written about this before, and recently. I’d like to go on to other things, like researching the structure of the Prince’s Tower at Middleham Castle, because I can’t figure out its three- or four-story layout. Or investigating Richard’s shoe size since his skeleton doesn’t have feet. Or holding a séance to ask him whether he’s had enough of everyone discussing him. But noooo, I seem to be stuck endlessly discussing the stupid marriage Edward contracted with Eleanor Talbot-Butler because a Certain Blogger With a Mean Reputation is making a great many people roll their eyes in exasperation because of her inability to frame a decent argument or engage in an honest debate when it comes to this subject.

I present the following points for your consideration when you want to frame a valid argument regarding Edward’s prior marriage.

Do your medieval and renaissance research. This includes knowing who said what and when regarding the pre-contract; thoroughly acquainting yourself with the medieval Church canon law directing marriages and impediments to same; knowing the clerical members of Edward V’s council; and knowing the members of Richard III’s Parliament.

All of this so you can intelligently weigh and argue your points regarding:

  1. What is contemporary source material and what is not
  2. How unreliable some sources are due to personal agendas
  3. How and why medieval Church law would have declared Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid, and why their children were declared bastards
  4. Which members (cleric, merchant, or noble) of the king’s council in May 1483 and of Parliament in January 1484 would or would not have been receptive to Richard of Gloucester manipulating or threatening them (and why), and which members (if any) profited through Richard after he became king
  5. Who Robert Stillington was, why his career and positions under Henry VI and Edward IV mattered, which chronicler cites him as the source of the pre-contract marriage accusation, whether Stillington was a witness to the marriage or if he only brought hearsay to Edward V’s council table, and why he was not a two-bit player on the contemporary stage, and how the king’s council would have reacted to his revelation. You’ll also need to know why and how all of this matters. And you might also want to look into Stillington’s family because they had some personal connections with the Talbots.

Yes, that’s a lot. You want your position and your arguments to be taken seriously? Then do the footwork and pay your dues. Take the time to learn what you need to know to frame a decent argument, and don’t take someone else’s bloggy or published word for it. And please, I beg you, cite your sources like you were taught to do when you wrote your first term paper at the age of twelve.

Realize there is a difference in genres: writing about history is not the same as writing an historical or fantasy novel

If you are writing fiction, you can change historical facts as you go along. If you do so, you are writing a subgenre of historical or fantasy fiction known as alternate universe or alternate history.

If you are writing about actual historical fact, medieval canon law is not open to your changes. Nor is it open to your interpretation. Medieval canon law existed for over four hundred years, and its tenets are clear. Its requirements for the dissolution of marriages and the declaration of bastards is written in stone. No one’s opinion can alter these facts. If you want to alter the facts, invent your own world and write a fantasy novel. Your world, your rules. Medieval world, medieval rules.

If you cared to research medieval law and Lady Eleanor Butler-Talbot, you’d learn that the woman conducted herself legally like a wife and not a widow long after the death of her first husband because a widow was free to make a will, but a wife was not unless she had her husband’s permission. And so it was that only a few weeks before her death, Eleanor did not will her lands to her sister Elizabeth, but deeded them outright to her. As for those who might have known about Eleanor’s marriage to Edward IV, Eleanor’s father, John Talbot, died in 1453, so he didn’t know about the marriage. Her mother Margaret, Countess of Shrewsbury, did not die until 1468, so she may or may not have known about Edward’s marrying her daughter. But you can be sure that other members of her family were alive and well, and they likely knew that she had a second husband, however secret that husband wished to be. There may also have been land in Wiltshire bestowed from Edward IV to Eleanor.[i]

You could posit that Edward IV conducted himself as a bigamous husband three years after his marriage to Eleanor. How’s that? Consider:

  1. Edward did not marry Elizabeth Woodville openly, he did not seek his councilors knowledge or the Church’s support.
  2. Edward married Elizabeth in secret, with only a priest (or Bishop Stillington) and Jacquetta Woodville, Countess Rivers, present.
  3. Why did Edward marry in secret [twice]? When a couple did this, it was usually to avoid the prohibition of authority, be that father, brother or king. Obviously this did not apply to Edward who was the king. So we have to look around for another motive.
  4. Either he was scared of offending Warwick, or he was acting in bad faith (initially with Elizabeth and for years with Eleanor).
  5. The truth was bound to emerge if he kept Elizabeth as a wife, Edward could avoid offending and/or humiliating Warwick (who was in negotiations for Edward to marry a foreign bride) only in the short term.
  6. Either way, Edward was acting in bad faith with Elizabeth. Again we have to ask why.
  7. One reason might be that he was determined to bed Elizabeth at all costs and thought he could repudiate the ceremony without much trouble. This wasn’t an unusual medieval scenario when a man already had a wife.
  8. If Edward intended Elizabeth to be his queen, he acted with gross irresponsibility when he married her in private, clandestinely, without witnesses rather than openly, in a grand royal wedding inside a cathedral, with all of his leading advisers present.
  9. There can be absolutely no doubt that Edward knew, since he was born and raised in the medieval Church, that he was making a marriage (or two marriages) that canon law decreed irregular. His marriage(s) also had issues under the English laws of inheritance.
  10. I’ll leave it to you to think up other reasons why Edward felt it necessary to marry in secret and present those arguments if you so choose.

Stillington was said by one chronicler to have conducted the marriage between Eleanor Butler and Edward IV. Which chronicler? It shouldn’t be hard for you to find out, if you want to. I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t More, the Croyland Chronicle, or Mancini. I’ll also leave it to you to find out why an eye witness to an event was valid evidence to a 15th-century court or king’s council. Again, you’ll need to know such things if you want to frame a valid argument regarding such things.

Saying Bishop Robert Stillington was no one of consequence does not make it so.

Men of no consequence do not become Keeper of the Privy Seal for seven years, nor serve twice as Lord Chancellor. Men of no consequence could not and did not influence the Three Estates.

The Three Estates, which included several bishops and archbishops, at the very least decided in the spring 1483 that the allegation of bigamy against Edward IV matched what they knew of the king’s character and behavior. To suggest that Stillington adduced[ii] no evidence is wishful thinking, a deliberate attempt to mislead your reader, or a desperate act of denial. There was evidence, it was recorded at the time, and the conclusions drawn by the Three Estates are clearly outlined in the Act of Settlement (commonly known as Titulus Regius), recorded and still preserved in the original sewn parchment roll of Richard III’s Parliament of January 1484.

The fact that Edward V’s council records are missing do not negate their original existence, just as the fact that many town, city, county and other royal records are missing do not negate their original existence. Medieval England’s archives were not like the Library of Congress which has the wisdom to vault their original materials far underground in a dry, temperature-controlled environment, safe from mildew, insects, and fire. You also seem ignorant of the fact a 16th-century fire in Westminster took out a great many medieval records.

The only reason we have one of Richard’s expense books is because someone had removed it from the Westminster archive and had it in his possession when the fire occurred. It does not logically follow that the reason we have only one of Richard’s expense books is because there weren’t any others, just as it does not logically follow that the reason we do not have the records of Edward V’s council meetings is because there weren’t any. Edward’s records and Richard III’s records aren’t the only ones missing. Some may have been deliberately destroyed, others may have been victims of time, mould, fire, or whatever else fate came up with.

We work with what is left, and we frame possibilities and probabilities. If we’re wise, we do not frame absolutes because that is not possible. Even if you choose a side, the fun is in the ongoing debate…if you let it be.

Richard, His Spies and His Minions Must Have Worked Round the Clock

Have you any idea of the logistical burden and collateral deceivers you created when you suggested out of your imagination that Richard came up with a ‘false bride’ for Edward IV?

In only a few days in the spring of 1483, with less than three weeks to go before Edward V’s coronation and while managing to govern England as Protector of the Realm through endless meetings, dictating drafts of documents and correspondence, reviewing and changing documents, reviewing and signing final versions of documents, and other sundry responsibilities and claims on Richard’s time that none of us can begin to imagine, the Duke of Gloucester would have had to:

  1. Violate Church law and the English common laws we know Richard was sworn to keep and worked to uphold all of his adult life, first as Constable of England; secondly in weekly, if not daily, councils and courts in the North; and finally as Lord Protector.
  2. Come up with a woman of suitable pedigree.
  3. Make sure her surviving family, friends, and servants were willing to enter into the deception.
  4. Coerced witnesses or forged written evidence – both of which had to hold up to the scrutiny of Edward V’s unfriendly, suspicious, learned council.

The possibility of the truth leaking out in such a scenario is obvious. Also, Richard was a child when Edward married Eleanor Butler-Talbot, so it’s doubtful that adult Richard could make a list on his own of likely candidates from 20+ years past. At the beginning of his scheme, he’d have to ask someone to recommend suitable imaginary brides – alive or dead. He’d then have to contact her and/or her family and make the necessary arrangements – promises delivered like a villain in a Disney musical for a scheme that might or might not work with the Three Estates:

I know it sounds sordid, but you’ll be rewarded
When at last I am given my dues,
And in justice deliciously squared…

So prepare for the coup of the century,
Prepare for the murkiest scam.
Meticulous planning, tenacity spanning,
Decades of denial is simply why I’ll
Be king undisputed respected, saluted,
And seen for the wonder I am
.[iii]

More than a few people would know of the matter. Others would have been asked to commit perjury, and for what? No evident or sure reward from a royal duke who’d spent the last twelve years in the North, and at great risk to themselves, their families, their present and future security?

Why Seek to Become King When You Were Already Going to Be Given the Quasi-Regency of England?

Annette Carson points out that Richard’s appointment as Protector and Defender of the Realm was not meant to end with the coronation of Edward V on 22 June. The king’s council had assigned John Russell (Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Chancellor, and no admirer of Richard), to draft a sermon to be presented at the opening of Edward V’s Parliament on 25 June. This 14-page sermon makes it clear that the king’s council wanted Richard to not only continue defending the realm, but also to take over the teaching and oversight of the boy-king until he reached his majority. Richard’s Protectorship was to be extended, in Carson’s words, to “take on the nature of a quasi-regency.”[iv]

There isn’t space here to reiterate all that Carson has researched and revealed about protectorships and regencies, and not just Richard’s. You would do well to consult her work – all of her work – before framing any future rebuttals.

What Did Stillington Gain from Speaking Out?

The French diplomat Philippe de Commines never met Richard or Stillington, and de Commines is the one who says Stillington brought the pre-contract to Richard’s attention.

This man had served both Henry VI and Edward IV as Lord Chancellor for a great many years. When Stillington came forward, he was effectively retired on a very comfortable pension. Did he obtain additional goodies from Richard for his trouble? One would think so.

That would be a no. There is no evidence that Richard rewarded Stillington in any way.

Mocking an Historian’s Sexual Orientation is Not a Valid Premise

Arguing canon law by directing homophobic jokes and cartoons at an acknowledged and honored historical expert is no argument at all. It only reflects badly upon your own character.

What About that Professor of Mine Who Adored Elizabeth I?

My professor was so enamored of The Virgin Queen, his office seemed a shrine to her. She looked down from her lofty poster when I, a baby-researcher when it came to Richard III, submitted my paper to my professor.

“Do you think he did it?” I asked.

“Probably.”

That was all my professor said, and he was kind enough to give me an “A” on the paper. He could have sneered at my arguments, shafted my conclusions, and sent me back to researching until I agreed with him. But he was a professional who managed to respect even the opinions of lowly undergraduates.

I like professionals. They’re the ones who teach you not to take anybody’s word for anything. They teach you to go and see for yourself, to make up your own mind, and not simply regurgitate what you’ve heard before or read on badly written blogs.

__________

Notes

[i] A good place to begin researching Edwards possible grant(s) to Eleanor are two works by John Ashdown-Hill. The first is a book he wrote called Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who Put Richard III on the Throne. Pages 91-94 specifically deal with Edwards grants to Eleanor. The second is paper Ashdown-Hill wrote called, “Lady Eleanor Talbot: New Evidence; New Answers; New Questions,” which can be found on the Richard III Society page here:

http://www.richardiii.net/6_3_1_the_ricardian_archive.php

or downloaded direct by copying the following URL into your browser:

http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2006_vol16_ashdown_hill_lady_eleanor_talbot.pdf

[ii] Please note the deliberate use of the word adduced. The verb means to bring forward in argument or as evidence; to cite as pertinent or conclusive.

[iii] “Be Prepared,” from The Lion King. Lyrics by Tim Rice.

[iv] Carson, Annette. Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England, Imprimis Imprimatur, Horstead, 2015. Discussion regarding the contents of Russell’s planned sermon and the council’s planned quasi-regency for Richard is on pages 57-60. The sermon draft is on pages 101-106. The entire volume is invaluable.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

28 thoughts on “A Time for Truth, a Time for Lies…or for Pretended Obliviousness and Bullying Tactics

  1. Great summary of the argument! One small correction- de Commynes might have met Richard in person first during the time the latter was in exile in 1471, then being in the service of Charles the Bold, and he would almost certainly have met him at Picquigny, where Commynes had to act as Louis’ double. So, unless Commynes himself denied having met Richard, he quite likely had.

    Like

    • Thinking about this, and quite OT, Commynes had quite a gossippy style of describing events- witness his remarks on Edward having gained weight since he last saw him. How likely, then, would it have been for him not to mention it if the English king’s little brother, the same one who made himself conspicuous by opposing the treaty, had been visibly handicapped? We know what exact condition Richard had, of course, but I think this might be another indication that Richard really did manage to hide the effects of his scoliosis quite well.

      Like

  2. Jasmine on said:

    One possible reason for Edward marrying EW in secret is that he wished to bed her and, if we accept the pre-contract, he had form. With Eleanor Talbot, it would seem he wedded and bedded the lady, then left her. Perhaps he wished to do the same with EW. The fact that he didn’t may have been down to genuine sexual passion between the two and so, eventually, he acknowledged her openly.

    Like

  3. mairemartello on said:

    I’ve always felt that Richard must have been very angry with Stillington. He was not rewarded which surely would have happened if Richard had positive feelings for his Johnny-Come-Lately news update. And I shudder to think of Stillington’s feelings as he approached the formidable Protector!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kalina on said:

      Evidence, evidence, evidence…:)))

      Like

    • Actually, I wonder what irked Richard more- the realization of the mess his brother left for him to sort out, or the fact that Stillington by telling it was most likely breaking the most solemn promises of silence Edward must have extracted from him… which probably also explained why there was no reward forthcoming for the informer.

      Like

  4. Iris on said:

    Can I join you in thanking your old Elizabethan professor for making you the curious and thinking researcher you are? 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m so glad to see this endorsement of the importance of doing your own research, which is why I tried in ‘The Maligned King’ to make the sources clear and accessible in the Appendix. There are also ongoing updates to our knowledge that I keep adding every time there’s a reprint. In 2013 I added the latest thinking on the date the Crowland continuation relating to 1483-5 was written: it’s a tiny point, but it seems evident that it was written around October 1485, six months earlier than previously thought. I sat and considered this for a long time, because it makes a difference to the way we look at it, and it removes the main support for the supposition that the author was Bishop Russell in 1486. New stuff is being discovered all the time, and anyone can do it. I think delving on your own behalf and then analysing the result is incredibly satisfying, and sharing your ideas with others is best of all. Which is why you’ll never stop me writing books even when I have to pay to publish them myself. 😉

    Liked by 4 people

    • Kalina on said:

      Mrs Carson, I love you almost like Richard:)))

      Liked by 1 person

    • That makes so much sense and explains some of the things that have always baffled me about the Crowland Chronicle continuation, such as why the author cited Titulus Regius when it was illegal to do so (if he was writing in October 1985, it wasn’t yet). Or why he reported all the gossip about Richard III and Elizabeth of York without adding, as Polydore Vergil later did, that Elizabeth was against that alleged marriage; you’d think he’d either give it the Tudor-friendly spin as Vergil did, or completely omit it, if Elizabeth had already been married to the new king by the time of the writing!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Kalina on said:

    As a foreigner living abroad I had always much more troubles with researchs on a historical truth about Richard III as English Author of this post:))) I began of course from Shakespeare:))) To day is much better however I am still silly and do not anything certain. By a way I strong recommend the blog of Matthew Lewis, specially his last post “Evidence, evidence, evidence…” I am strong Ricardian and for it I am quite sure that the worst truth about Richard is better than lies and fiction presented as a truth with love of his fans. And my question: what is worthy the publication which I ordered from amazon: Richard III: From Contemporary Chronicles, Letters and Records by Keith Dockray, P. W. Hammond (2013)? Anybody knows?

    Like

    • Kalina on said:

      errata: I am still silly and do not know nothing certain…

      Like

    • bloodofcherries on said:

      Hi Kalina, I own that book and found the selection of sources somewhat slim and slanted towards the author’s unfavourable view, which is apparent from the commentary. For example, he comments on Richard’s supposed immorality, but doesn’t include any of the sources that mention his negotiations to marry Joanna of Portugal, rather than his niece. It’s a good starting point but by no means complete.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kalina on said:

        Thank you

        Like

      • I’d like to ask an advice about potentially buying a book, too. What are the differences between David Hipshon’s “Richard III and the Death of Chivalry” and his biography of Richard III (Rutledge Historical Biographies)? The latter is still in stock and available to order from Amazon, the former is not (though I could get a second hand copy from Abebooks).

        Like

      • Kalina on said:

        @timetravellingbunny

        Thanks:))

        Like

    • Hi, Kalina – if you can get a copy, I would recommend ‘Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field’ by P.W. Hammond and A.F. Sutton (Constable, London, 1985), which picks out a really good selection of quotes and sets them in context. Great illustrations too.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. David Hipshon in Richard III and the Death of Chivalry, re Ricardian standpoint on the death of Edward IV’s sons:
    “… Richard was far too noble to do such a barbaric thing, and those that believe otherwise will burn in hell. This is a quasi-religious phenomenon, a cult of adulation that brooks no heresy”. Here his note 26 cited Richard III: The Maligned King as an example of this.

    Like

    • That quote would more accurately describe the consternation with which some people react to the idea of Margaret Beaufort being one of the suspects in the murder. I’ve never seen anyone react like that to Richard or anyone else being a suspect. According to Leanda DeLisle, for instance, if you think it’s remotely possible Margaret had anything to do with it, you’re misogynistic. (I’d say that, in fact, her attitude is an example of “benevolent sexism”.)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kalina on said:

      Did the murder of Desmond,s sons think about flames in hell? I doubt. And I would not like see Richard as a bigot fearing hell. It does not mean of course that I think Richard be “guilt”. All of nobles then were full of “chivalry” and all did horrible things

      Like

  8. bloodofcherries on said:

    Regarding Richard being made (quasi) regent, according to the Crowland chronicle this was pretty much what a substantial faction in the council had been arguing for all along: “The more prudent members of the council, however, were of the opinion that guardianship of so youthful a person, until he should reach the years of maturity, ought to be utterly forbidden to his uncles and brothers on his mother’s side.” This then lead to the decision to limit Edward V’s escort from Ludlow to London to 2000 men, so it is difficult to see obtaining the regency as a partisan move on Richard’s part or a sign of his ambition.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Kalina on said:

    @bloodofcherries
    2000 men of escort, not to let know Duke of Gloucester about situation (appointment him to Lord Protector of Realm), horse-races: who will be first in London with young king…It was clear that Wydvilles tried to take a power eliminating Lord Protector. And yet “more prudent members of council” supported their usurpation! It was obvious that some heads had to be cut. Even without any trial as usually in extraordinary circumstances

    Like

  10. Kalina, the quote says that the ‘more prudent members of council’ thought the new King’s upbringing should be ‘utterly forbidden to his uncles and brothers on his mother’s side’ – i.e they didn’t support the Woodvilles.

    Like

    • Kalina on said:

      @jrlarner

      What,s a shame….I know my English is horrible but I,ve hope that not so. Thank you very much but I consider in any case that Richard had a reason to fear Woodvilles:)))

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, I agree about that Kalina – only I’m not sure he feared them rather than he suspected them of trying to leave him out, and was annoyed that they were undermining his authority. Keep going with the English – practice makes perfect!

        Like

  11. sighthound6 on said:

    It is rarely noted that even 2,000 men was a very large escort indeed. Indeed a similar number escorted the young Henry VI across France (in the teeth of a very active enemy) to Paris for his crowning in 1431. Moreover, this was 2,000 men from the Marches of Wales, an area not noted for its tranquility. That Richard was able to remove Edward V from this ‘escort’ when he had a maximum of about 500 men (300 of his own and 200 Buckingham) is interesting, however one looks at it. The unanswered question is why did the Woodvilles deem an even bigger escort to be necessary? We are told, after all, that they had no problem with Richard, and that his actions came as a complete surprise. In my mind, something does not add up.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Escorting the prince back to London should, after years of the country being mostly peaceful, not have necessitated such a big escort in any case. Unless, of course, someone wanted a pretext for bringing 2000 armed troops into the capital. The latter supposition might also be what made Hastings, if I remember correctly, threaten the council (which was at the time sitting without Richard who still didn’t even know of his brother’s death) with retiring to Calais, which of course implicated the threat of coming back from there with a contingent of his own troops, unless the numbers of the escort were limited. That number of 2000 was to my knowledge already a compromise, originally the Woodvilles wanted even more.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Kalina on said:

    Fear and fury of Woodvilles after taking by Duke of Gloucester possession of young Edward is by me the strong evidence that they had very bad intentions and felt themselves guilty. Queen Dowager ran away into the sanctuary with all her family and robbed the treasure of Kingdom which was going to use for the action against Lord Protector.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: