murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the category “sources”

The Queen of England the Tudors chose to overlook….

Yes, of course the Tudors dismissed the fact that Eleanor Talbot (Butler) was Edward IV’s first wife. Well, only wife, as it happens, because she was still alive when he “married” Elizabeth Woodville, whom he never did wed legally. In law, she was little more than a glorified mistress, and as a consequence, all the children she bore to Edward were illegitimate. So the usurper Henry VII pretended Eleanor had barely existed, let alone had married Edward IV.

It mattered to him because he wanted to marry Edward’s oldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. Ostensibly to unite the warring Houses of York and Lancaster; in reality to give himself some credibility. It was all very well to claim the throne through conquest, but knew his hold on the throne was very shaky. Elizabeth of York was rather necessary to him, and the sooner she could produce an heir, the better for Henry!

But he couldn’t marry a bastard. So he overturned Richard III’s legitimate right to the throne, declared Elizabeth trueborn, married her and gave us the delightful Henry VIII. Thank you very much. But, of course, by making her trueborn, he also did the same to her two brothers, whose claim to the throne immediately became far superior to his own. Oh, dear. Poor Henry. What a dilemma. The result was that he was hounded throughout his reign by the fear that one or other of these Plantagenet “princes” would come to take the crown from him. My heart breaks for him,. Natch.

If you go to this article you can read an explanation of what happened. It doesn’t do Richard III any favours, of course, but then that’s par for the course! Always the slight nudge into the rough or the bunker. Never the hole in one he so rightly merited. Here’s a sample:

“…. Eleanor never claimed a crown for herself but as the Wars of the Roses raged to their bloody end at Bosworth Field, she became a central figure in the path to the throne. She was actually already dead by the time her name was passed through parliament in the fight for the right to rule but the fact that she had ever lived at all was a vital part of the hold that Richard III had on the title of King of England following the death of his brother, Edward IV, in 1483…..”

Fight for the right to rule? Um, read the Woodvilles trying to seize power and get rid of Richard of Gloucester, Edward IV’s only surviving brother. A vital part of the hold Richard III had….? If Eleanor and Edward IV were married, which clearly they were because the Three Estates believed in it sufficiiently to beg him to become king, Richard was the rightful heir to the throne. It wasn’t a case of his having a “hold” on being King of England, he WAS the King of England. Rightfully. Lawfully. By blood. Even by invitation, because everyone wanted Richard to wear the crown, except the Woodvilles and some of Edward’s old buddies, who feared a loss of influence. If the traditionalists can’t swallow this fact, then they’re even more blinkered than I thought.

Oh, and BTW, the above illustration seems to be solely of Henry VIII and his offspring. There is no sign of Old Miseryguts VII, not even a portrait on the wall. What an oversight. After all, he was the Tudor who made sure Eleanor’s marriage to Edward IV was ignored. Henry VIII and his children owed their thrones to his sleight of hand and devious brain. And the treacherous support of the Stanleys at Bosworth.

THE MEDIEVAL CROWNS OF EDWARD THE CONFESSOR AND QUEEN EDITH

IMG_0007.JPG

KING RICHARD III AND HIS CONSORT QUEEN ANNE NEVILLE WEARING  EDWARD THE CONFESSOR AND QUEEN EDITH’S CROWNS.  THE ROUS ROLL.

IMG_6045.jpg

THE SAME CROWNS WORN EARLIER BY EDWARD IV AND ELIZABETH WYDVILLE. Photograph by Geoffrey Wheeler.  

The first Coronation Crowns, known as the crowns of  Edward the Confessor  (also known as St Edward the Confessor)  and his wife  Queen Edith were probably made about the IIth century for the king’s coronation in his new completed rebuilt Church of St Peter, now known as Westminster Abbey on Thorney Island.   Edward was one of the last Anglo Saxon kings.  We know that Queen Edith’s crown was valued at £16 and was made of  ‘Siluer gilt Enriched with Garnetts foule pearle Saphires and some odd stones’.   Edward the Confessors crown was described as a ‘crowne of gould wyer worke sett with slight stones and two little bells’.   They were worn by every king and queen after that, excluding Edward V and Jane, who of course were never crowned,  until their destruction by the Parliamentarians.   Its hard to find an absolutely accurate depiction of them as various kings may have added bits and pieces over the centuries.   Having said that we have a  very good idea from the lovely drawings in  Rous roll,  the Beauchamp Pageant, and the Royal Window at Canterbury Cathedral.

 

IMG_3718.JPG

King Richard wearing the Crown of St Edward the Confessor, Rous Roll.

IMG_4380.JPG

Edward IV’S portrait in the Royal Window at Canterbury Cathedral wearing the Coronation Crown of St Edward.

IMG_6043.jpg

Elizabeth Wydeville in her coronation robes and Queen Edith’s crown. the Worshipful Company of Skinners

IMG_3719.JPG

Queen Anne from the Rous Roll wearing Queen Edith’s crown..

IMG_6040.jpg

Queen Anne Neville wearing Queen Edith’s crown from the Beauchamp Pageant..

IMG_5410.jpg

King Richard III wearing the crown of Edward the Confessor..The Beauchamp Pageant.

St Edwards Crown.png

King Edward the Confessor’s crown..drawn by Julian Rowe.  The Road to Bosworth Field.  P W Hammond and Anne E Sutton

Queen Ediths Crown.png

Queen Edith’s crown..artist Julian Rowe

These wonderful crowns survived until the end of the English Civil War when the victorious Parliamentarians ordered all sacred symbols and relics of monarchy, now rendered redundant,  to be ‘totallie Broken and defaced’ and the metal to be used to make coins.

New crowns were made for Charles II‘s  coronation in 1661 by Robert Vyner including a new Coronation Crown.  This crown sometimes gets confused with the Imperial State Crown.  It should be remembered that the Coronation Crown is only used for coronation and thus does not get many outings.   The State crown is the one our present queen wears for the State Opening of Parliament.  Having been made comparatively recently in 1937 it has a most exquisite survivor from the Middle Ages…the Black Prince’s Ruby! Its not actually a. ruby but a large irregular cabochon red spinel.  The stone has an astonishing history which is hard to verify  and  I will go into here only briefly but suffice to say it did indeed belong to  Edward the Black Prince.  It then passed to Henry V who was said to have worn it on his helmet at Agincourt.  It was later said that it was worn by King Richard III in the crown that was lost at Bosworth and legend says was found under a hawthorn bush by William Stanley.

31701_216034_ORI_13-Copy-2.jpg

The red cabochon known as the Black Princes Ruby..a medieval survivor and now worn in the modern State Crown.

And so, besides the two royal crowns, much, much more was lost.  Described by Sir Roy Strong  as a ‘treasure trove of medieval goldsmith work’ there were  ‘Several ancient sceptres and staffs, two with doves on top and one with a fleur-de-lis of silver gilt and an ampulla which contained the holy oil for anointing listed as ‘A doue (actually an eagle) of gould set with stones and pearle’    There were ancient medieval royal robes worn by the king before the crowning….and an ‘old Combe of Horne’ probably of Anglo Saxon origin and used to comb the kings hair after the anointing listed as ‘worth nothing’ .  A total of nine items were sold to a Mr Humphrey for £5 in November 1649 (1).

I’ll leave the last word on this tragic part of  British history to Sir Edward Walker, Garter of Arms who wrote his report in 1660.

‘And because through the Rapine of the late vnhappy times, all the Royall Ornaments and Regalia heretofore preserved from age to age in the Treasury of the the Church of Westminster, were taken away, sold and destroyed the Committee mert divers times, not only to direct the remaking such Royal Ornaments and Regalia, but even to setle the form and fashion of each particular’ (2)

1) Lost Treasures of Britain Roy Strong p124

2) Ibid p125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

King Edward IV’s Last Christmas….

Reconstruction of Christmas at Eltham 1482Historic England (illustration by Peter Urmston)

In the 14th century it became a royal tradition to spend Christmas at Eltham, and by 1482, Edward IV also held his Christmas there.

Antique Print of Eltham Palace

The top picture is an imagined scene of this Christmas in the great hall (pictured immediately above) with Edward, his queen and perhaps some of his sons and daughters at the dais.

It is hard to say from the 1482 scene whether or not there is anything unusual about Edward’s attire, but, according to Edward the Fourth by Laurence Stratford, 1910:-

“….Christmas 1482 was spent at Eltham, where the King ‘kept his estate all the whole feast in his great chamber, and the Queen in her chamber, where were daily more than 2000 persons served.’ (Stowe, Annals, London 1619)  A contemporary writer has left us a graphic account of the prosperous appearance of the Court at this season:  ‘You might have seen, in those days, the royal Court presenting no other appearance than such as fully befits a most mighty kingdom, filled with riches and with people of almost all nations, and (a  point in which it excelled all others) boasting of the most sweet and beautiful children,’ (The Continuators of the Croyland Chonicle (translated and edited by H. T. Riley in Ingulph’s Chronicles, published Bohn) the issue of the King and Queen….

“….One of the guests appears to have been Andrew Palaeologus, a member of the fallen house of Constantinople. (Ramsay, Lancaster and York, 1892, ii. p 448) The King appeared ‘clad in a great variety of most costly garments, of quite a different cut to those which had been usually seen hitherto in our kingdom. The sleeves of the robes were very full and hanging, greatly resembling a monk’s frock, and so lined within with most costly furs and rolled over the shoulders as to give that Prince a new and distinguished air to beholders, he being a person of most elegant appearance, and remarkable beyond all others for the attraction of his person.’ (Cont. Croyland, pp 480-1)….”

Oh, if only the colours and fabrics had been described! I have some difficulty in picturing how, exactly, these clothes were so startlingly new and different. However, this certainly doesn’t sound like a man whose health would deteriorate so much that he would die only four months later, on 9th April 1483. I always thought his decline was long and slow, aided and abetted by obesity and years of riotous living. Surely such a man could not have been described as ‘a person of most elegant appearance’ at Christmas 1482?

Eltham Palace, showing the moat and position of the great hall

Eleanor: A reminder of the evidence

I know some people in Cairo are a little slow on the uptake, but there are several independent sources, as shown by the Revealing Richard III blog. In a recent series of articles in the Ricardian Bulletin, the team cite:

  1. Titulus Regius, as composed from the petition to the Three Estates on 26 June 1483;
  2.  Richard III’s letter to Lord Mountjoy, Captain of Calais, two days later;
  3. The Crowland Chronicle, which independently confirmed the above letter;
  4. Phillippe de Commynes‘ (above left) contemporaneous (1483) reports to Louis XI;
  5. Eustace de Chapuys‘ (below left) 1533-4 letters to Charles V, showing that Henry VIII had a lesser dynastic claim to the English throne than Catherine of Aragon, his patron’s aunt;
  6. A 1486 Year Book, detailing Henry VII’s attempts to persuade Bishop Stillington to confess so that Titulus Regius could be annulled and not just destroyed unread.
    The last three all name Stillington or refer to the “Bishop of B”, such that only Bath and Wells fits that description in England during 1483-7. Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford and Bristol didn’t have Bishops in those days.

In fact, by building on John Ashdown-Hill’s decade of painstaking research, the Revealing Richard team even link to the text of Titulus Regius. These points don’t even mention Stillington’s imprisonment, the Desmond executions, Clarence’s imprisonment and execution, Catesby’s execution, Lady Eleanor’s land dealings and testament together with Lord Sudeley’s adverse treatment and More‘s “Lady Lucy” false trail.

Where was Henry (Percy)?

After reading Michael Jones‘ book “Bosworth 1485 The Psychology of a Battle”, I have leaned towards his site of the Battle of Bosworth. Since the book was published more evidence has come to light that shows that the battle probably did not take place around Ambion Hill. I have also read John D Austin’s book “MEREVALE and Atherstone”. John lives in the Atherstone area and his book provides lots of local evidence to suggest that the battle may well have been fought in the area.

Michael Jones cites The Crowland Chronicle, one of the earliest sources of the battle, which refers to Richard having camped near to Merevale Abbey ready to meet Tudor’s challenge and names their clash the next day as the Battle of Merevale.

In the Spring 2004 Ricardian Bulletin I came across an article by Lynda M Telford entitled “War Horses at Bosworth”. Lynda Telford states that thirty years of experience with horses leads her to believe whether Dadlington or Atherstone is the battle site, it cannot have been Ambion Hill. This is due to the cramped area thought to be the battlefield which is quite unsuitable for large numbers of horses.

We have recently fought the second Battle of Bosworth with Ricardians pitted against Hinckley Borough Council which ended with them giving planning consent to Horiba Mira so that they could build an electric car testing site on the battlefield site. Unfortunately, the second battle was lost as was the first, however, it appears to confirm that the battle was fought in the area suggested by Michael Jones.

So, if this is the case it begs the question: where was the Earl of Northumberland during the battle? When it was thought that the battle was fought at Ambion Hill, it was said that Northumberland was posted to rear of Richard as the reserve and that he didn’t become involved in the battle. This was taken to mean that Northumberland deserted Richard too, as did the Stanleys.

I am going to suggest that, given the new site of the battle with Richard to north of Atherstone and Tudor to the south of it, Northumberland was to the south of “Tudor”. What if he was guarding the road to London to ensure that “Tudor” didn’t take off down Watling Street? On page 22 of his book ”Merevale and Atherstone”, John D Austin comments “ Tudor marched Northwards through Wales from Milford Haven hopefully to gather Welsh supporters and then he intended to march south from Shrewsbury, more or less down Watling Street to London. Henry had never fought in a battle before and particularly with his puny forces and lack of experience the last thing he wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard” It makes sense, why would Tudor turn east off Watling St to confront Richard when he could have hopefully carried on marching south to London?

Richard would have realised that the battle would have to be in a place of his choosing and he would have remembered that when he and Edward returned from Burgundy in 1471 and they challenged Warwick at Coventry, they moved off and found that the road to London was unguarded and so they set off immediately and entered London unchallenged. He may well have instructed Northumberland to guard the road and ensure that no one got through. What if his instructions to Northumberland were not to leave the road unguarded in any circumstances?

I have read that it was considered strange that “Tudor” went to Leicester after the battle and not straight to London. I wonder if that was because having turned east to do battle he knew that Northumberland was still guarding the road and Tudor, not being battle hardened at all, couldn’t face an encounter with troops who would have been relatively fresh in comparison with his troops.

RICHARD III’s HORSES..

IMG_5875.jpgStained glass depiction of King Richard and his legendary horse, White Surrey.

As we now know sadly, Richard, did not own a horse called  White Surrey or, as he has sometimes been called, White Syrie  (1).  But  Richard did own horses aplenty and we are fortunate lists of these horses have survived – see below (2).  What I know of horses you could put on a postage stamp but the late John Ashdown-Hill explains in his book The Mythology of Richard III’  that liard or lyard are grey horses which could be described as white.  So therefore it can clearly be seen that Richard did have grey horses which could appear white.  If one of these horses was not called White Syrie…well..he should have been!   John goes on to explain it was once believed ‘that a horse called White Syrie was actually listed in a 15th century manuscript’  – see below  – ‘however this proved to be a misreading.  There is therefore no 15th century surviving evidence of the name of the horse that Richard rode in his last battle (3)’

THE NAMES OF HORSE BEING AT GRISSE IN HAVERING PARC

First Liard – trotting

Liard Clervax of Croft  – ambling

The Whit – ambling

Baiard Babingtone – ambling

Liard Strangwisse – Ambling

Baiard Rither – Ambling

Liard Cultone – trotting

The litille Whit of Knaresburghe  – ambling

My ladies grey gelding (name unknown) – Ambling

Liard Carlile – trotting

Liard Norffolk – Ambling

THE NAMES OF HORSES BEING AT GRISSE IN HOLDERNESSE

Liard Mountfort – ambling

Powisse Tomlynsone

IMG_5870.jpg

THE NAMES OF HORSES BEING AT HARDMET AT NOTTINGHAM 

Liard Danby – Ambling

Liard hoton – Ambling

The gret grey that came from Gervaux -ambling

Baiard Culton – trotting

Blak Morelle – Trotting

The Whit of Gervaux  – Ambling for my lady

The Walssh (hoby) nag – for my lady ambling

Jak

Liard Bradshare – ambling

The gret Bay Gelding of Gervaux  ……. (John Ashdown-Hill suggests this horse is a candidate for the  very horse  Richard rode into battle being stabled at Hardmet (Harmet) in Nottingham)

Lyard Say

Beyard Chambreleyne

The Blak of Holderness – trotting

Beyard Chamberlain

Liard Bowes

Alas no White Surrey or Whyte Syrie …it’s a great shame that the name of Richard’s horse t he rode into battle that day is lost to us  for,  without a doubt,   he would have been magnificent and as such surely deserves recognition.

IMG_5865.jpg

IMG_6212.JPG

Armour for man and horse circa 1480.  Wallace Collection..

 

 

 

1.White Surrey Peter W Hammond.  Article in Richard III Crown and People p285

2. British Library Harelean  Manuscript p.4.5 Vol 1. Ed by Horrox and Hammond.

3. The Mythology of Richard III p117.118 John Ashdown-Hill.

Richard’s marriage was shrouded in mystery….?

Richard, Anne and their only son – from the Rous Roll

OK, I was reading this article with some interest, especially when Anne Neville’s name appeared, but then I was stopped in my tracks by the following:

“….Anne was the daughter of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, and who later became Richard III’s queen. Their relationship – said to suffer after the death of their son Edward – remains shrouded in mystery….”

Um, who said the relationship began to suffer? They no longer had an heir for Richard, that’s true, but this doesn’t mean that the relationship suffered. Or that it was shrouded in mystery. Richard remained devoted to her to the end. So, bah, humbug, to the Leamington Observer!

 

Historians or amateur (non-fiction) enthusiasts….?

Here is something I hope will get your grey cells going. Some time ago, a friend of mine had a quote from her Amazon.com review of a book published on the book itself. The book was one of the Neophyte Warrior series by Richard Patton, of which I have read not one sentence. But it really doesn’t matter which book or author it was, rather the point my friend was making. I have extracted the relevant portion:-

“….the author…is not a historian by trade. Perhaps this is why his interest…is so easily—and vividly—brought to life…”

Do you agree with this? How many of today’s popular historians can light up their subject with a compelling glow? And how many can kill it stone dead on the first page? And what about the other, more traditional, historians, who are so steeped in their subject and the minutiae of every detail that wading through it all is hard labour that will only get you to the nitty-gritty if you can stay the course? I am not referring to ficton writers, who are, by definition, concerned with fiction, and if it is historical fiction, they will weave their story around the facts. No, I am talking about non-fiction.

Might it be that the amateur enthusiast can actually convey everything to a reader with more verve and excitement than many who have all the qualifications?

I know that “amateur enthusiast” can equal “a bit nutty”, and that “enthusiasm” can equal “fanatical obsession”, especially in this day of self-publication, but the same descriptions can apply to certain fully qualified historians with letters after their names. I am not referring to extremists of any kind whatsoever.

Opinions please? And which present historian or amateur (non-fiction) enthusiast is your favourite? Mine is Ian Mortimer, because he is a historian who crosses the divide sublimely, and brings his subject to wonderful life. In my opinion, anyway. Over to you…

“The King” and Agincourt in (almost) black and white….

 

Not having Netflix myself, I went to my daughter’s house to watch The King. I enjoyed it very much, but have some gripes, not least a desire to keep scratching or wishing the characters would wash their hair…and the rest of themselves. I really don’t think the highest in the land went around looking quite so scruffy.

And the medieval period was a time of colour. They loved colour, the brighter the better…so why is the film relentlessly grey, dark and full of shadows? Even the trailer picture is like it (see above).

The actual battle scenes of Agincourt were conducted in mud, which maybe the clash really was (I’m not an expert on Agincourt), and the armoured soldiers from both sides pitched in like ants swarming over something they relished. What with grey armour and mud, it was absolutely impossible for them to know who was on which side. And what banners appeared were dull and virtually monochrome. Hardly anyone seemed to have identifying colours or badges. How the heck could they tell if they were killing the enemy or one of their own? It was just a huge, bloodthirsty scrum. And they all looked like this even before they collided in the mud!

Yes, yes, maybe medieval battlefields were like this, but I’m sure they had sensible ways of identifying each other – it wasn’t Towton in the middle of a snowstorm.

The illustration below is more or less from the period, and shows that contrary to wearing no identification, the armies on both sides wore easily discernible colours.

Agincourt 1415
Chroniques d’Enguerrand de Monstrelet (early 15th century)

Maybe the director’s desire to show the grim side of it all was allowed to overwhelm some obvious facts. Shame. But still, in spite of all that, an excellent film. I just wish that viewing it wasn’t like looking through really dark shades on a sunless day.

Timothée Chalamet was a revelation as Henry V. Perfectly cast, perfectly acted…and a perfectly achieved English accent. No one could have guessed that he is really American. I think we may look forward to a meteoric career…if there isn’t one, it will be a great shame. Here’s hoping he’s offered the right sort of role in future.

Robert Pattinson was wonderful as the Dauphin. There may not have been any carpet handy, but he chewed everything else. Brilliant. Welcome proof that the awful Twilight films weren’t the peak of his ability.

To see how the battle scenes were filmed, try You Tube.

Knights Banneret

A Knight Banneret must not be confused with a Baronet – the latter title did not come into use until the 17th Century and was (and is) in effect an hereditary knighthood.

In the Middle Ages a Banneret was a senior knight, either by experience or wealth, but more likely the latter. He was marked by entitlement to a rectangular banner, as opposed to the pennons carried by lesser knights – technically “knights bachelor”. The qualifying income seems to have been £200 a year, although many were much richer. Kings who wanted to promote a knight with an inadequate income to the rank of Banneret would often give them a money grant to make up the difference.

A Banneret would have a larger retinue than an ordinary knight, and the retinue might well include lesser knights in its composition. He was also paid double the war wages of an ordinary knight.

In the 14th Century, it was common for Knights Banneret to receive an individual summons to Parliament. Where they did, it is hard to distinguish them from a parliamentary baron, who normally received an identical summons. (The first barony by letters patent was not created until 1387.)

The distinction seems to be that a Knight Banneret’s individual summons  was not usually passed to his heir. If it was, in effect, a parliamentary baronage was created. Nigel Saul (1) gives the examples of Sir Roger Beauchamp (summoned between 1363-1379), Sir Richard Stafford (1371-1379) and Sir Guy Brienne (1350-1389). These men’s heirs were not summoned. It is tempting to think of them as Life Peers, but this is anachronistic.

In the fifteenth century the distinction between gentry on the one hand and peerage on the other became much clearer. This is at least in part because all new peerages were now created by letters patent. An effect of this was to limit the inheritance of peerages to heirs male, except in the case of the earlier creations, because letters patent almost invariably excluded female inheritance.

(1) Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century, Nigel Saul. Page 8.

 

 

 

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: