murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the month “May, 2016”

May 25, 1553 – A Triple Wedding

A little more about Lord Henry Hastings, son of Katherine Pole and later Earl of Huntingdon. 1595 was the year he died, after serving as Lord President of the Council of the North …

Janet Wertman

Guildford and Jane (Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons) Guildford and Jane (Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

This day in history launched the scheme that would lead to the execution of John Dudley, the man who had clawed his way back up the political ladder after his father’s execution for treason in 1509, who had become Duke of Northumberland and President of Edward VI’s Privy Council, who was the de facto leader of the country as Edward was still a minor.

In February 1553, Edward VI had fallen ill – seriously enough that he had started to consider the succession. As an ardent Protestant, he did not want his Catholic sister Mary to inherit the throne, which was what would occur under the Act of Succession adopted during his father’s reign. Edward came up with his own “Devise for the Succession” in which the crown would bypass both Mary and Elizabeth as well as Mary Queen of Scots, and…

View original post 566 more words

Advertisements

Richard, George, Edward and HENRY at the same wedding….?

marriage of richard of york and ann mowbray

Here is a strange identification. While seeking more information about the duel that had supposedly taken place at Richard and Anne’s wedding, I happened upon a source that made it clear the Richard and Anne in question were the little Duke of York, son of Edward IV, and Anne Mowbray, and the wedding date was 15th January 1478, at St Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster. (The source claims 1477, but it is shown that this is because the old calendar was used – the year, by our reckoning, was 1478.)

The source I refer to is Illustrations of ancient state and chivalry from manuscripts preserved in the Ashmolean museum [ed. by W.H. Black]. – Ashmolean Museum. January 1st, 1840. William Nicol, Shakespeare Press. 

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dGtbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA31 

On page 31 it says:- “. . . . And then, at the first side table, satt the Marquis of Dorsett; the length of the same table accomplished [i.e. occupied] with ladyes and gentlewomen; and, at the other end, my Lord of Richmond [Footnote: Henry, Earl of Richmond, afterwards King Henry VII. He was twenty two years old at the time of this festival] . . . .”

And on page vi, the writer insists that among those present were the bridegroom’s “sister Elizabeth, and the young Earl of Richmond, who but nine years afterward (exactly almost to a day) were married and seated together on the throne of England”.

This whole account is very detailed indeed, naming everybody who was present at these celebrations (including Richard, Duke of Gloucester), but how could Henry Tudor be there as well? He had been in exile since 1471, and would remain so until 1485. So the reference cannot possibly be correct. Can it?

Bearing in mind that I am NOT a historian of any sort, let us consider the title, Earl of Richmond. Please forgive any bloopers. It had been Edmund Tudor’s, and would have gone to his son, Henry (future Henry VII) but the small matter treason and attainder got in the way, and the Yorkists confiscated it in 1461. Edward IV then gave the Honour of Richmond to his brother, George, Duke of Clarence, who became the new Earl of Richmond.

Anyway, naturally enough, Henry Tudor disputed all this from exile in Brittany. He wanted his father’s title, but Edward did not oblige. The Yorkist king actually tried to get the inconvenient Lancastrian back from exile (no doubt to shove him in jail, or worse) but Henry very wisely stayed where he was.

It is totally unlikely that there would have been a truce for the wedding, with Henry trotting along, present in hand, to enjoy all the entertainments. Then trotting back to Brittany to continue his defiance from afar. It is also unlikely that the table in question was so long that its other end was actually in Brittany, so Henry could sit down quite safely.

But by 1478, George had really annoyed Edward IV. One treason too many. He had been arrested in May 1477 and flung in the Tower. He was certainly out of the way on the date of the wedding, so could not be the Earl of Richmond referred to. Besides, he was still the Duke of Clarence, and would hardly be referred to by a lesser title. He was eventually attainted on 19th January 1478, the day after his execution on 18th January. The wedding had been on 15th January. A busy few days for Edward IV.

Richard, Duke of Gloucester was also present at the wedding, and is referred to throughout by this name and title, not a lesser one. Yet another reason to scratch George from the contenders for being this mysterious wedding guest. Richard succeeded to the earldom when he became king, which wasn’t—as we know!—until 1483.

So, who is this enigmatic guest? The editor of the source, W. H. Black, is definite about it being Henry Tudor. Can’t have been. Any suggestions . . .?

Marriage_Of_Richard_Of_Shrewsbury,_Duke_Of_York,_To_Lady_Anne_Mowbray with Henry - 1

The Marriage Of Richard Of Shrewsbury, Duke Of York, To Lady Anne Mowbray. James Northcote (1746-1831). Oil On Canvas, 1820.(tweaked)

A 19th century British reference to the Portuguese marriage

The facts of the proposed marriages of Richard III to Joana of Portugal and of Manoel of Beja to Elizabeth of York had, of course, been known in Portugal for a long time, before being published by Domingos Mauricio Gomes dos Santos in 1963.

Arthur Kincaid picked up on this and mentioned the marriages in his 1979 publication of his edition of Buck. Barrie Williams then wrote about the matter at length in the Ricardian in the 1980s and Jeremy Potter mentioned the marriages also in his 1983 book Good King Richard? And it was Williams, of course, who inspired Annette Carson to look into the matter more deeply, and write at length about it in The Maligned King.

Yet, there has been no evidence that earlier Ricardians (ie before 1963) knew anything about the matter. Paul Murray Kendall did not know about the marriages, and bemoaned the “fact” that Richard had made no effort to marry off his nieces to get them out of Henry Tudor’s reach (he did not know about Cecily and Ralph Scrope, either). It does not feature in The Daughter of Time; nor in Philip Lindsay’s glowing biography in 1933, nor in Sir Clements Markham’s 1906 book, nor any of the earlier authors, such as Halsted and Buck. Yet, at least one near-contemporary of Markham did know, and mentioned it in one of his books. Unfortunately, he was not a Ricardian…..

Henry (H) Morse Stephens was born in 1857 in Edinburgh and attended Balliol College, Oxford where he obtained a BA in 1880 and an MA in 1892. He was a staff lecturer there until 1894. He also lectured at Cambridge University on Indian history, while writing articles for a number of magazines and papers.

Stephens also wrote a number of books including works about Sir Robert Peel, the French revolution, Indian history … and a history of Portugal, which appears to have been written in the early 1890s. In discussing the reign of Joana’s brother, King (Dom) João II (still popular in Portugal today, by the way, with at least one Algarve hotel named after him!), Stephens talks about João’s relationship with Edward IV and Richard III, in particular relating to the renewals of the Treaty of Windsor by both Kings. He then has this to say:

“In 1485 the King of Portugal proposed in a Cortes held at Alcobaça, that his only sister, Joanna (sic), should be given in marriage to Richard III, but the princess, who … wished to become a nun … refused the alliance”.

Interestingly, it was at that Cortes that the Portuguese discovered, to their dismay, that Richard was exploring the possibility of marrying Isabel of Aragon if Joana would not have him. This, of course, pretty much ensured a favourable reply from the Portuguese, and led to Annette Carson’s interesting and very plausible interpretation of Buck’s Elizabeth of York letter: that she was asking Norfolk to speak to Richard to ensue he pursued the Portuguese marriage (which offered marriage with Manoel of Beja), rather than the Spanish one, which offered her nothing.

So…… there were indeed people before the 20th Century in this country, and not just in Portugal, who knew perfectly well that Richard was not trying to marry his niece and yet none of the people who would have benefited from the information – like Markham – knew anything about it. In the case of Stephens’s book, it was a specialised subject that a Ricardian author would have no reason to read, unless he also happened, by chance, to be interested in Portugal. Another problem in this particular case was that Stephens emigrated to America in 1894, becoming Professor of History at Berkeley, in California. Following the San Francisco earthquake in 1906, he spent the rest of his life (he died in 1919) collecting as much information as possible about that tragedy.

The cynic in me, though, does wonder whether others (ie those not well disposed towards Richard) might have known – and chosen to keep the information to themselves.

One final point about Markham, he visited Portugal at least once (and was actually staying in Estoril when he heard of the death of his friend Robert Scott (of the Antarctic)). If only he had known……

References:

Wikipedia – Henry Morse Stephens

Arthur Kincaid – edition of George Buck’s original work

Jeremy Potter – Good King Richard?

Annette Carson – The Maligned King

H Morse Stephens – The Story of Portugal (described in the Kindle version as a Short History of Portugal)

Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of Mr Warbeck

Giaconda's Blog

sherlock head

Sherlock and Watson are on a case. They have time travelled back to the C15th to try and uncover the truth behind the mysterious disappearance of the ‘Princes in the Tower’ but the trail has gone cold with multiple possibilities and suspects, if they were indeed murdered at all. Sherlock hopes to find new clues about their fate in the legend of Perkin Warbeck.

Rain is falling and a dank mist rising off the river as Sherlock and Watson emerge from the precincts of the Tower and make their way along the web of lanes which lead to the area known as the ‘minories’.

Sherlock wraps his great coat around him to keep out the chill air. Watson looks wary. There are thieves in the shadows and a drunken brawl going on in one of the ale houses nearby.

‘Where now then?’ askes Watson.

‘Deeper into our net of intrigue, Watson.’ Sherlock…

View original post 2,866 more words

Wolsey’s objective finally achieved

UCSWolseywolseys-gate-1

Nearly five hundred years after Thomas Wolsey sought to establish an independent University in Ipswich, this will finally happen from 1 August this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36307221

Wolsey’s Gate is all that remains of Cardinal College:
https://ipswichhistory.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/wolseys-gate/

 

Myths Being Revived

I have been watching the BBC’s ‘The Hollow Crown’ with interest, as I have never actually seen the whole of Shakespeare’s Richard III and none of Henry VI (Parts I and II). At first I was appalled at Benedict Cumberbatch’s grotesquely exaggerated portrayal of Richard, but consoled myself by thinking that at least, because people will see that it bears no factual resemblance to his actual spinal condition, it might serve to distance the Bard’s Richard from the real man.

I was to be sadly disillusioned, however, on reading an article published by The Mail On Sunday. It basically states that the production team researched people with “curvature of the spine” and how they would have looked if unable to have it corrected “In order to make the depiction of Richard more accurate.” They also state that:

“Until recently it was assumed Shakespeare had exaggerated Richard’s disability to make him appear more monstrous. That theory was undermined by the discovery of the King’s body in Leicester in 2012”

Read the whole article and  see the depiction for yourself here.
And here is the man with the same curvature showing how Richard would have actually looked. Spot the difference!
Dominic in body armour
I have already complained in the following terms:

“I have seen a report in the Mail on Sunday concerning Benedict Cumberbatch and his portrayal of Richard III in The Hollow Crown. (‘Benedict’s really got the hump’). Towards  the end it states: ‘In order to make the depiction of Richard more accurate, Mallett and Cumberbatch studied the medical histories of those who had curvature of the spine and had not been able to have the condition corrected. Until recently, it was assumed that Shakespeare had exaggerated Richard’s disability to make him appear more monstrous. That theory was undermined by the discovery of the King’s body in Leicester in 2012, and tests showed that he suffered from scoliosis’.

While you may be reporting what the BBC have told you, and while it is correct that Richard suffered from scoliosis, this categorically does not equate to him having a hunchback. If your reporter had done any independent research at all into the condition, they would see that a scoliosis is a sideways curvature, which would not have manifested as a hump in a normal standing position. The only outward sign of the condition would have been one shoulder appearing higher than the other (which is how he was indeed described by contemporaries). As a Registered Osteopath, I am in a position to give an expert opinion on such matters. As a Ricardian, I am appalled that all the hard work we are doing to try to rehabilitate Richard’s reputation can be undermined in this way. Shakespeare’s Richard did have a hunchback, true, but to say that this is an accurate physical depiction of Richard is false and misleading. The public will think that if Richard’s spine was as Shakespeare described (which it isn’t), his character must be too. This prosthetic was obviously used for shock value. Fair enough, but it should be distanced from the real Richard III. There was a ‘body double’ found who had an almost identical curvature of the spine to Richard’s and a documentary made on Channel 4 showed how he could fight, ride and move perfectly normally and, clothed, you wouldn’t know he had the condition. (I have personally met the young man in question and can vouch for that being true). Incidentally, Shakespeare’s (and Cumberbatch’s) depiction of Richard having a withered arm and a limp is also false: Richard had neither. Please publish a correction as soon as possible; it might seem a trivial thing to you but many people really care that Richard was unjustly maligned and it means a lot to us. I would be happy to comment further if you would like to contact me and get an expert opinion instead of sensationalist nonsense.”

Richard, as interpreted by Frank Spencer…!

Frank Spencer plays RIII

Just when I thought adaptations of the Bard’s Richard could not get any worse, I find this. OK, not Frank Spencer, just his tank top.

http://tinyurl.com/horbrj6

 

“People, politics and Community in the Later Middle Ages”

(and symposium books in general)

I purchased this book, edited by Rosenthal and Richmond, for thirty pence but the cross-Atlantic postage was at least nine times as much. One of the eleven chapters, the first by Arthurson on the First Cornish Rebellion, was exceptional and many of the others were interesting.

This collaborative book, which was based largely on the 1985 International Congress on Mediaeval Studies at Western Michigan University but also on a symposium at Keele the same year, fits the pattern of several others. Perhaps they should be available as e-books more often, or even e-chapters? It might save both the vendor and purchaser on postage.

 

Richard, Lincoln Cathedral, and a beautiful Turner drawing….

Lincoln Carhedral - Turner

I love Lincoln Cathedral and Turner, and here they are together. Absolutely beautiful, and a view that cannot have changed much since the 15th century.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=743734&partId=1

Of course, Richard did visit Lincoln, and would have seen very much the same scene the Turner recreates so wonderfully. The following small extracts are from ‘The World of Richard III’ by Kristie Dean, and concern our king’s impression as he approached Lincoln Cathedral during his royal progress of 1483. 

Lincoln Cathedral.

. . . As he was in Lincoln during the Feast of St Edward, it is likely Richard would have visited the massive cathedral. Even for a king used to luxury, it is easy to believe that Lincoln Cathedral would have filled him with a sense of awe . . .

. . . It is possible to see the church from miles around as it rests high on the hill above the surrounding land . . .

. . . In Richard’s time the cathedral would have been protected by a large embattled wall with turrets and housing several gateways . . .

There is more about the cathedral and the castle in the book by Kristie Dean, which can be read at http://tinyurl.com/h5tnqvw

Henry Tudor and Richard’s eldest niece….

model of London Bridge

Last night on the Yesterday channel, I again watched the TV documentary Henry VII: Winter King, present by Thomas Penn.  It’s still good, although, dealing as it does with Henry’s character, it necessarily skirted around some of the other folk.

For instance, I was again left with the impression that Penn believes Elizabeth of York planned all along for a marriage to Henry Tudor. This I cannot imagine. She was Edward IV’s eldest daughter, a princess who had hopes of a grand foreign match under Richard. Would she really settle for a lowish Lancastrian chap of Beaufort stock, who was no longer even Earl of Richmond, and who had a price on his rather unlovely head to boot?

Thinking woman-to-woman here, for her to do that she would surely need to have at least clapped eyes on him and fallen passionately in love. But, unless he came over secretly for a tryst right under Richard’s nose, I cannot see how they could ever have met until after Bosworth. So we’re left with her choosing to throw in her lot with Henry at a complete distance, and without any real incentive. Let’s face it, he was not a likely prospect.

And if they did fall in love, it was surely a gradual thing, not a wild matter of the heart and hormones that made her wildly enthusiastic about leaping into his arms and bed from the moment the match was whispered.

I don’t doubt that others have different views about Elizabeth’s reasons for marrying Henry, and will be interested in hearing them.

I will add that she wasn’t forced to marry him. she could have said no, and there was not much he or anyone else could have done about it, except bundle her off to a nunnery and throw away the key. Or marry her to a stable boy for spite.

Plus, by giving Elizabeth into Margaret Beaufort’s charge before the marriage, he was (technically) guilty of abduction – yet another excuse for her to wriggle out of the match if she wanted to. But she didn’t. She went through with it. Why? Might she simply have been ambitious to be Queen of England – which she could never be while Richard was on the throne?

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: