murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the month “Nov, 2016”

Watch out Andrew, Richard’s coming….!

andrew

When I saw this headline about Royal Dukedoms, I’m afraid I’m so steeped in all things Richard that I leapt to the conclusion that it would be about one of the boys in the Tower. Then up popped the present Duke of York! I thought, that’s traditionalist propaganda gone mad – are they going to say Richard came back to try to smother Andrew in his bed…..?

(Of course, if the article DID say that, there are those who would believe it!)

Royal Dukedoms: Duke of York

 

A day out in Exeter

THE LEGENDARY TEN SECONDS ~ performance at Exeter’s Picturehouse – 6th November 2016

 

As always, it was a pleasure to sing with Ian Churchward, founding member of The Legendary Ten Seconds at the Picturehouse in Exeter – a wonderful, arty location that always provides a warm welcome.

 

We were joined by lovely staff from the Somerset & South West Scoliosis Association UK who brought balloons, cakes, sweets and donation pots. It was great to help raise awareness of the charity and perform Ian’s well written songs about Richard III. An author called Philip Photiou also brought along copies of his Wars of the Roses novel to sell at the event.

 

Rob Stroud on electric guitar and Lord Zarquon on keyboards created a powerful landscape to accompany the historical narratives. Their solos were magnificent.

 

We had a nice sized audience including the artist Georgie Harman who is contributing to the new artwork for the forthcoming Sunnes and Roses album by The Legendary Ten Seconds.

 

Ian introduced his songs with a background of the history and how he came to write it, giving a nice context to each piece.

 

A particular highlight was singing The Year of Three Kings with its catchy sing-along chorus. We sang it for a second time as part of an encore with a much more positive and audible response from the audience second time around, proving how catchy the songs are.

 

Ian chose songs from the first, second and third albums to sing at Sunday’s event, calling me up onstage accordingly. My vocals are on the 2nd and 3rd albums and I have sung most of the songs from the 1st album live, but did not know Ian at the time to record on the 1st album.

 

After a break from the band to focus on my acting ventures I was delighted to re-join this group of talented musicians for a gig at the Picturehouse, where it all began. Ian and I used to sing around 5 songs as part of a music evening consisting of different musicians. It was fantastic to perform a longer set this time with the whole band.

 

Camilla Joyce oct-16-poster-for-ricardian-albums wrathofkingsimage-poster-06-nov-16

 

WRITTEN AT RISING

 

LORD ANTHONY WOODVILLE

 

HOUSE OF YORK

 

THE LADY ANNE NEVILLE

 

FELLOWSHIP OF THE WHITE BOAR

 

KING IN THE CAR PARK

 

HOW DO YOU REBURY A KING

 

RAGGED STAFF instrumental

 

THE GOLD IT FEELS SO COLD

 

THE COURT OF KING RICHARD III

 

THE YEAR OF THREE KINGS

 

SHAKESPEARE’S RICHARD

 

ACT III SCENE IV

 

WHITE SURREY

 

AMBION HILL 

 

SHERIFF HUTTON

 

Who or what is under the Esplanade in Rochester….?

rochester-esplanade

Here’s a new suggestion – that Richard’s crown might be under the Esplanade at Rochester. Well, the idea is dismissed because the English Civil War saw an end to the original crown jewels – but who is to say Richard’s crown was destroyed too? But, big but, why on earth would his crown be in Rochester in the first place? So, I guess that whatever they’ve found under the Esplanade is more likely to be the helicopter or Lord Lucan!

Memorial stone to mark Richard III’s visit

Bang on the nose….!

david_starkey3

I have just come upon the following couplet, concerning a historian’s mistakes:-

‘Others to some faint meaning make pretence
But (——–) never deviates into sense.’

Well, the original two-syllabled name fled from my mind, to be replaced by another of similar construction. Starkey! Yes, folks, a couplet entirely suited to him.

‘Others to some faint meaning make pretence
But Starkey never deviates into sense.’

A Loon strikes back!

 

 

Thomas Langton: Richard III’s Character Witness

RICARDIAN LOONS

Amongst the glories of Winchester Cathedral, there is a chantry chapel of outstanding beauty and magnificence. The man who is buried there, and for whom the roof bosses provide a rebus clue, is Thomas Langton, who died of plague in 1501 only days after being elected by Henry VII as Archbishop of Canterbury. Earlier, he had served as the Bishop of Winchester (1493-1501), Salisbury (1484-93) and St. David’s (1483-84), and acted as a servant to three — or four, depending on how you count — English kings. As the information plaque at Winchester Cathedral succinctly announces, Langton had been a chaplain to Edward IV and Richard III, and Ambassador to France and Rome.

Although his death came as a surprise in his 70th year, he did have the opportunity to make an extensive will, showing he died a very wealthy man. It runs to over 100 items, and contains…

View original post 9,040 more words

The Da Vinci Pre-Contract….?

No, no – do not be put off by this dry old illustration, for it but masks the workings of an over-active mind. Mine!

mezeray

Does anything about the following sound familiar?

“…The nickname John of London, given to Richard [II], alludes to a report spread by Henry that Richard was the illegitimate son of the Princess of Wales [Joan of Kent] by a canon of Bordeaux; (see Froissart;) but Mezeray remarks, that that reproach might have been cast upon Henry [IV] with more reason, seeing the queen his mother, on her death-bed, had confessed to a bishop that she had substituted him [Henry] in the place of her own true son, whom she had suffocated by accident, charging him [the bishop] to discover the secret if he [Henry] were likely to inherit the crown. (Mezeray, 983, fo. Paris, 1643)” Taken from Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Richart Deux, Roy Dengleterre.

OK, so the story was related by a Frenchman 250 years or so after the death of Richard II, whom the Black Prince certainly acknowledged as his son. And when it comes to Henry IV…his mother was never Queen. Blanche of Lancaster was Duchess of Lancaster.

Mezeray is therefore a hardly reliable source, but the scenario he paints is thought-provoking to someone like me. He wrote after the 15th century, when proof of some sort had come to light of Edward IV’s bigamy . Was a version of the Mezeray scenario then enacted? Was Stillington, or someone else in the know, charged to only reveal the proof of the Eleanor Talbot marriage if there was a chance of Edward V being crowned? And if so, who charged him? Who was in a position to make such a decision? How many of them were there? I know, I know, it sounds like The da Vinci Code, with some manipulative and arcane secret society pulling strings.

Perhaps whoever it was had hope that fate would step in and remove the need for such a revelation? The natural deaths of the boys, perhaps? Premature death was a common enough fate back then. And so was murder, of course. And the girls might well have been safely married to husbands no one would accept on the throne of England? International royal marriages were all very well when it was an English prince marrying a foreign princess, but not the other way around. Elizabeth of York, for instance, was at one time betrothed to Charles, the Dauphin of France. And Cecily was betrothed to the future James IV of Scotland. Grand contracts, but unsuitable for the English crown. If those marriages had taken place, I cannot believe either gentleman would be rapturously greeted in London. Another James of Scotland would eventually be crowned in Westminster Abbey, but not in the 15th century. So, if not the boys or the girls…who then?

Was the pre-contract being kept hidden as a contingency plan? Something to produce if and when the need arose? I do not know who might be behind such a thing. Certainly not Richard, who was in Yorkshire and did not even know Edward was on his deathbed until it was all over. If he’d been in on a secret masterplan, he’d have been ready and waiting in London. Maybe he wasn’t even the one the masterplanners had in mind. He just got in the way when the masterplan suffered a hiccup, and he was most inconveniently ended up as Richard III, which was NOT in the script. I don’t think Henry VII was the intended monarch either. When push came to shove, he was too lowly and unroyal, and so was another very inconvenient intrusion. The whole masterplan began to go pear-shaped when Edward IV died so suddenly, and from then on things did not go as the conspirators intended. Then, after Bosworth, I think they ripped up the whole idea up in disgust, walked away and let history take its Tudor course. Thank you, chaps.

Right, ladies and gentlemen, I can’t think why anyone conspire to such patient and determined lengths, or what their purpose might have been, but if there was a masterplan, who might they have intended to be the ultimate King of England? And who might have been the masterplanners?

On the understanding that there are holes in my reasoning (or lack of it), and that the above could be a suggestion for a movie, please let me know your suggestions for the actual identities of all these mysterious, shadowy figures. Answers on a postcard, please…

Two great calendars, in spite of Henry VII spoiling August on one….!

bl-illustrated-manuscripts-calendar-2017

I have just bought this British Library “Illuminated Manuscripts” calendar for 2017. It’s gorgeous, and the illustrations are magnificent reproductions. I bought it from Amazon – couldn’t find it on the British Library site.

If you follow the link, you can see small pictures of all twelve illustrations. August’s picture is of Henry VII adoring the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, but it doesn’t look in the least like him. More like Edward IV! And anyway, August is only one month out of twelve. Right? So don’t let him put you off. It’s still a great calendar to enjoy.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Library-Illu…/…/ref=sr_1_1…

There is another gorgeous calendar available, again at Amazon, but this time from the Fitzwilliam Museum. http://tinyurl.com/zlms8yp. This time I haven’t spotted any sneaky Henrys.

fitzwilliam-calendar

 

 

Richard’s latest court trial….

richards-latest-trial

Richard has been put on trial again, and found not guilty. I tell you the verdict of the latest trial in case you lose the will to live before finally emerging from the intensely intrusive advertisements that always ruin the Leicester Mercury website. The article itself IS there, and an account of the trial.  Just stick at it.

Oh, and Richard is a little middle-aged, but we have to get past that sort of thing.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/8203-richard-iii-trial-in-leicester-set-to-answer-600-year-old-medieval-mystery-8211-live-updates/story-29863423-detail/story.html

In other words, he was acquitted again despite:
Only being five or six when the trial began.
Being dead before it finished. More being allowed to testify without a head – and not mentioning the “energetic priest” moving the bodies.
Only the “balance of probabilities” being required to decide the case.

Should cheating bankers pay for the revamp of Leicester Cathedral…?

leicester-cathedral

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/mps-want-fines-imposed-on-cheating-bankers-to-11-3m-leicester-cathedral-revamp/story-29862153-detail/story.html

Well, it’s worth a try, eh? Plus, of course, the link also contains a video of the bigwigs leaving the cathedral on the day of Richard’s interment. Always a bit of a jar to see the Beefeaters in their Tudor garb, but at least they have E:II on their uniforms. I’m sure Henry would have slipped in somehow if he could.

 

Livery colours, badges, and the Battle of Barnet…

battle

Once again, I have been rambling around the internet, seeking information about livery colours. In the process I came upon the following site, which has an abundance of interesting information about many aspects of the medieval period.

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/13103/whose-colors-coat-of-arms-did-men-of-arms-wear-in-a-feudal-army-14th-century

The link deals with one area of interest, but the main site covers a lot more. One passage on this page particularly caught my attention, because it mentions livery colours and badges, and describes why the Lancastrians lost the Battle of Barnet. Yes, we all know Barnet was to do with confusing Edward IV’s Sun in Splendour with the Earl of Oxford’s Star, but I found this extract particularly clear and interesting.

Here is the passage, which I have broken up into smaller paragraphs, to make it easier to read:-

“Referring to the Black Book of Edward IV – it’s drawn from his own household accounts, so the limits to the retainers allowed are the limits Edward himself set. Remember that Edward had only managed to get, hold, then regain the throne by force-of-arms but he was very well aware that the nobles had their own retainers and that it was possible to lose the throne again. Warwick had a huge number of retainers, well into the hundreds. The limitations on the numbers of retainers were an attempt to control the issue of lords having private armies as large as they could afford and attacking each other if they disagreed with something.

“As for colours – lords had their own livery. For example, the House of York, in the person of the Duke of York (father to Edward IV and Richard III) used murray (a sort of deep burgundy-red) and blue. There might also be a sigil and a coat-of-arms. Richard III’s personal emblem was the White Boar, but his brother Edward’s was the “Sunne in Splendor” – a sort of star-burst. The lord himself would use his colours and his sigil. His employed retainers – the men employed directly by himself to be his armsmen – would probably wear his colours – so for example, a heavy padded jacket made up of four sections of cloth in two of the lord’s colours, with the diagonal-opposites being in matching colours. They would also likely wear his sigil (eg White Boar) sewn onto their breast. During battle, they would start grouped together under a banner displaying the colours and/or the sigil.

“However, over time, the lower lords didn’t always have a standing army – it was expensive. So they would either hire professional arms-men when they needed them or they would gather (volunteers or strong-armed) peasants in from the villages they controlled. These peasants would have an arming/padded jack (heavyly padded jacket) if they were lucky. They would be very unlikely to have the lord’s colours. So in a small skirmish between two small lords, you have your two sigil banners and other than that, very little way of telling who fought for whom. In larger battles, you might have a mix of peasants in their own gear/mercs who might have put the sigil on for ease and would have decent gear/liveried retainers. Where your higher lord needs back-up (perhaps to bring his own strength up to a level required by HIS higher lord), he will send to the lower lords to provide their men. So you have groups of peasants under their manorial lord’s banner standing in larger groups headed by the liveried retainers of the upper lord under HIS banner with the upper lord’s own peasants in the mix.

“Most Middle Ages battles were bloody messes, in part because of the difficulty in determining friend and foe. Not helped by confusion over banners: at the Battle of Barnet (wars of the Roses) in poor weather, the Earl of Oxford’s men (Lancastrian) attacked the men of Lord Hastings (York) and chased them off the field. In the time it took Oxford to get his men back under control, the battle-line veered around. As he returned, he unknowingly came up behind his own side, right behind the position held by John Montagu. Montagu’s men mistook Oxford’s banner of a “streaming star” for Edward IV’s “Sunne in Splendor” and attacked Oxford. As Montagu had been on Edward’s side at one point, Oxford’s men assumed Montagu had turned sides again. They called “treason” and panic spread through the Lancastrian side. Edward attacked, Montagu was killed and the Lancastrians were utterly defeated, including the death of Montagu’s older brother the famous Earl of Warwick.

“This defeat, with the deaths of the two brothers, led almost directly to the following defeat of the Lancastrian Prince Edward and the death of Henry VI, leaving the future Henry VII as the only Lancastrian with any chance of the throne. So the fact that English troops fought without any ready identifiers, and the fact that knowing your enemy very often relied on whether or not you recognised their badge, had a very large bearing on the rulership of England. Had Edward IV lost at Barnet, Henry VI would probably have been put back on the throne and Henry VII would perhaps never have ruled, as Henry VI had a son and heir.”

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: