murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag “John Ashdown-Hill”

NOT AGAIN! THE LATEST FROM A CAIRO DWELLER …

IMG_5444.jpg

Richard Duke of Gloucester being offered the crown by the Three Estates at Baynards Castle, June 1483.  Painting by Sigismund Goetze at the Royal Exchange…(or according to some.. Richard in the actual act of ‘usurping’ the throne)…

I came across this article on a forum devoted to late medieval Britain.

Unfortunately I read it..5 minutes from my life I will never get back again… but as I was laid up with a bad head cold I had nothing  much better to do.  I should have been warned by the photo of a little girl in what looked like an attempt at Tudor costume and the words ‘I have no idea who this little girl is but she is adorable.  Little kids in this era were adorable and vulnerable too ..just like modern children..lets keep that in mind’.  This should have alerted me to the fact the writer was a writer of rubbish.  Nevertheless I cracked on.  As it transpired the article has more holes in it than a hairnet…and worse was to come.

John Howard, having been cheated out of his inheritance, which ‘seems to have stuck in his craw’ then went on to become ‘one of the first men to help the new king’s uncle usurp his throne and become King Richard III’.  When I challenged the word ‘usurp’ I received the reply of a emoji rolling on the floor laughing.  It  then became clear to me the quality of the author’s debating powers were going to be found somewhat lacking.  But casting that aside for the moment lets look at the word ‘usurp‘ as used by the author to describe the actions of Richard.  The late historian John Ashdown-Hill addressed this point very well.  “Definitions of the verb ‘usurp’ include include terms as to seize power by force and without legal authority…Richard III did not gain the throne by fighting a battle nor did he seize the crown.  He was offered the crown by the Three Estates of the Realm.  Later the decision of the Three Estates of the Realm was formally enacted by the Parliament of 1484′ (1) . Thus to describe Richard as a usurper is incorrect and a nonsense.”

Not content with calling Richard a usurper,  John Howard, later Duke of Norfolk is next in line to be  maligned by the statement regarding Anne Mowbray, (the 4 year old heiress of John Mowbray who died just before her ninth birthday)  ‘All that John Howard could do was wait and hope something happened to Anne…’!  This is quite an offensive thing to say as well as ludicrous as no source has come down to us informing us of Howard’s personal thoughts on this matter and which I very much doubt would have been ‘hoping’ for the death of a small child. Incidentally, he was raised to the Duchy of Norfolk whilst the “Princes”, including the previous in suo jure Duke, were known to be alive – see p.78 and pp.117-124 of The Mythology of the “Princes in the Tower”, also by Ashdown-Hill.
Howard later went on to fight and lay down his life for his king aged 60 years old.  This colossus of a man could easily have wormed his way out of fighting, as others did, with his age as an excuse.  He did no such thing and its a great pity that we have modern day pip-squeaks having the brass neck to  disparage such a man.  The author needs to hang their head with shame but I doubt if that will happen any time soon.

As we go on we see Lady Eleanor Butler nee Talbot – a lady of the nobility and daughter to the great John Talbot lst Earl of Shrewsbury a, sister to the Duchess of Norfolk and a lady known for her piety – described as one of King Edward’s ‘side pieces’…(I know,  I know..my guess is this is a stab at  ‘bit on the side’ but your guess is as good as mine).  She was in actual fact no such thing,  being the legal wife of Edward who married her in order to get her into bed.   Surely Eleanor deserves more respect than this….as I said pip-squeaks and all.

The writer then follows up with a message touching on the execution of Lord Hastings to prove her point that Richard was a Bad Man.   I say ‘touching’ in a very loose way as she makes no attempt to explore,  let alone mention,   what reasons were behind the execution only pointing out, unnecessarily,   that Hastings  was executed ‘even though he was one of the most richest and powerful men in the country’..what has this got to do with it?   Furthermore…’Richard had him dragged out and beheaded on a log’. Presumably Dickens, who was unborn, or More, aged five at the time, cannot be taken seriously as eye-witnesses?  Is it not about time this myth was debunked?  Three accounts survive of the dramatic events at the meeting at the Tower that day – those from  Historical Notes of a London Citizen 1483/84, Mancini and Croyland (2) – none of which mention the infamous log.

 

aid835443-v4-728px-Build-a-Log-Lamp-Step-1-Version-2.jpg

A log, something that Lord Hastings was NOT beheaded on…

Hastings was probably, as Carson points out, executed under the Law of Arms (3), having tried to eliminate the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham and been judged by the Constable’s Court, Gloucester being Lord High Constable at the time. In much the same way, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey were judged by the Earl of Northumberland, the designated Vice-Constable.

 

  1. The Mythology of Richard III chapter 6 p74 John Ashdown-Hill.
  2. Historical Notes of a London Citizen 1483/8, English Historical Review, Vol. 96. p588 Richard Firth Green,   Mancini p.89, Croyland  p.479-80.  I am indebted to Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton for their very useful book, Richard III The Road to Bosworth Field, a complete and handy reference to all the primary sources covering Richard’s reign.
  3. The Maligned King p.98, but Carson’s other book illustrates the powers of the Constable and Protector and the documents assigning the role to Gloucester.
Advertisements

The Bard’s Richard, as played by Richard’s grandfather. . .!

Serial killer? Murdered his nephews? Infamous? Had no children? Oh, well, this New Zealand article does go on to say that the actual Richard had a much better reputation than the Bard saw fit to bestow upon him. But if the illustration above is supposed to be Richard….it’s more like his grandfather! Or Jeremy Corbyn admiring the new colour of his beard!

For more, see here.

Not again: “Britain’s bloody Crown” (3)

Here at Murrey and Blue, we are not in the habit of reviewing repeats, not even when we have commented on them before. This time, it is the very fact and timing of the repeat of Channel Four’s “Who killed the Princes in the Tower?”, with the ubiquitous Dan Jones, that is at issue, together with the assumptions made by Jones in the programme and even in the title. In the show, a bearded (!) Richard is shown ordering the murder of two individuals who were declared illegitimate by the Three Estates, a verdict that some of his rivals disagreed with, giving those rivals a motive he didn’t have.

The programme is the very apogee of denialism, based upon Jones’ imagination and Domenico Mancini’s wholly discredited account, presented with at least a dozen disproven “facts”, such as the definition of treason, the Constable‘s court and the boys’ “house arrest”. Mancini’s name is also wrongly rendered as “Dominic”, and Jones fails to mention that he was a spy for Angelo Cato, speaking little English. So, if you want to watch the investigation of a “crime” that may never have happened …

These assumptions include:
1) That Edward IV’s sons qualified as “Princes” – as Ashdown-Hill pointed out, their illegitimacy means that this cannot be the case.
2) That they have died – we can let him have that one!
3) That they died together – for which we have no evidence whatsoever.
4) That they died in the Tower  -again no evidence.
5) That they died in 1483 – a little suggestive evidence in one case.
6) That anyone killed them or ordered their deaths – again no evidence.
7) That Richard III was that person – again no evidence.

The timing of this repeat is also at issue because Ashdown-Hill’s discovery of the “Princes”‘ mtDNA has provided us with the opportunity to test what some people still regard as “evidence” – the remains, of whatever age, gender, era, quantity or even species, in the Westminster Abbey urn. One might argue that this repeat was scheduled “in the teeth of the evidence”.

Still, what can we expect, knowing Jones’ mentor?

The inspiration for Richard III’s rosary….

The following article and extract are from Nerdalicious:

 

“ ‘In the nineteenth century the Clare Cross was found in the castle ruins. It’s actually a reliquary, containing a fragment of the True Cross, and it was probably made soon after 1450  so probably it belonged to Richard III’s mother. For that reason, when I got an agreement from Leicester Cathedral for a rosary to be buried with Richard III I chose a quite large, black wooden rosary which I bought years ago, when I was a student at the University of East Anglia, in Norwich. Then I had the cross and the central link replaced by George Easton (who made Richard III’s funeral crown for me too). George copied the Clare Cross for me, to replace the original crucifix, and he also made an enamelled white rose (like the ones he made for Richard’s crown) to replace the central link. A white rose is the symbol of the house of York, of course, but it’s also a symbol of the Virgin Mary, who is at the centre of the prayers of the rosary.’ “

 

Spot the deliberate mistakes?

An article in British History Online , as illustrated by this John Zephaniah Bell painting says:
“Here [Westminster Abbey/Sanctuary/Cheyneygates] the unhappy queen [Elizabeth Woodville] was induced by the Duke of Buckingham and the Archbishop of York to surrender her little son, Edward V., to his uncle Richard, who carried him to the Tower, where the two children shared a common fate.”

Ashdown-Hill’s The Mythology of the “Princes in the Tower” (ch.9, p.49) talks about the confusion between Shrewsbury and Sir Richard Grey, who WAS arrested at Stony Stratford. ch.10 p.54 includes your c19 portrait: “Buckingham was also a leading member of a delegation which, on Monday 16 June, was sent by boat a short distance up the Thames to Westminster Abbey, to try to persuade Elizabeth Woodville to release her younger son, RICHARD DUKE OF YORK, from sanctuary and send him to join his elder brother at the King’s Lodgings in the Tower. However, the person who actually led the deputation into the sanctuary at Westminster had to be a priest. Therefore the group was led by another royal cousin, Cardinal Bourchier, Archbishop of CANTERBURY”.
The same volume points out that we don’t know about any “common fate”, whilst putting us in a better position to find out.

This would explain a lot

Next month, David Starkey will be talking about Henry VIII on television again (1). However, in this Telegraph interview, he is compared to Henry in several ways, even suggesting that he

is that King’s reincarnation.
Sadly, the interviewer seems not to understand which of Henry’s marriage ceremonies were valid, or the difference between divorce and annulment, differences which were fully explained in a certain book a few years ago (2).

(1) Channel Four, Monday 6 April, 21:00.
(2) Royal Marriage Secrets, Ashdown-Hill, Chapter 10, pp. 95-113

Coming up soon …

Here is the front cover of the next book, about Edward IV’s chief mistress, from Britain’s busiest historian , to be published by Pen and Sword on 31 July. I wonder which surprises he will have for us this time?

Loyalty Binds Me reviewed

See Sarah Bryson’s review of this biography here .richard-iii-by-matthew-lewis

Or, if you would prefer to judge it by our criteria for a post-Kendall biography of Richard, read here. Lewis is already the author of a volume on the “Princes” but approaches the pre-contract and Portuguese marriage negotiations well, thereby scoring highly on the three most important points.

JOHN HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK – HIS WEDDING GIFTS…

 

IMG_5207.jpgJOHN HOWARD, PAINTING OF A  STAINED GLASS IMAGE FORMERLY AT TENDRING HALL OR SOUTH  CHAPEL, STOKE-BY-NAYLAND CHURCH, NOW LOST.

John Howard, what a colossus of a man – Admiral of England, member of the King’s  Council, Earl Marshal, Knight of the Garter, Treasurer of the Royal Household, High Sheriff , a great shipowner and much  more.  Described by Anne Crawford as ‘an extremely versatile royal servant, as a soldier, administrator and diplomate he had few equals among his contemporaries’.(1)   A valiant soldier and loyal friend to King Richard III, dying with him at Bosworth in 1485.  Much has been recorded about him and there are good biographies to be had by both Anne Crawford ‘Yorkist Lord’,  and John Ashdown-Hill’s ‘Richard III’s Beloved Cousyn’ with the bonus of his household books surviving edited by Crawford.  The well known comment written, regarding an incident in Howard’s life,  by a John Jenney describing Howard as being ‘as wode as a Wilde bullok’ indicates that he was neither  a pushover nor one to get the wrong side of (2).   There is also the remark made by Howard’s first wife, Catherine, aimed at John Paston and helpfully forwarded on to Paston by his brother Clement,  who wrote urgently advising  that he should get to where he had been summoned without delay and with a good excuse  as ‘Howard’s wife made her bost that if any of her husbands men might come to yow ther yulde goe noe penny for your life: and Howard hath with the Kings a great fellowship’ (3).  John Paston did indeed get himself to London and was promptly thrown into the Fleet prison for a short while.  Perhaps this move saved him from Howard’s ire so every cloud as they say.    But its not Howard’s professional life I want to focus on here but his private life for he was it would appear both a  caring father and a loving husband and Crawford has noted that when he was in London at his house in Stepney for any length of time his family and household would move there too.(4)   stoke-by-nayland-k-howard-1.jpg

Brass of Catherine Howard nee Molines at Stoke by Nayland.  Engraved in 1535 with a Tudor headdress.  Catherine’s mantle has her husband’s arms on one side with the Molines on the other.  

Although little is known about his relationship with his first wife, Catherine Moleyns (died November 1465) there are indications that his second marriage to Margaret Chedworth was a love match as the long list of valuable bridal gifts Howard ‘showered’ on her has happily  survived and been included in the Paston Letters. The pair were married in ‘unseemly’ haste six months after the death of Margaret’s second husband, John Norris of Bray,  and before Norris’ will, leaving most of his lands to his young widow provided she did not remarry, was proved.  Crawford writes  ‘Now a wealthy and eligible widower, Howard could well have looked for a second wife among the ranks of aristocratic widows or those who had personal connections, but his choice was at once more personal…’ (5).   Margaret was cousin to Anne Crosby nee Chedworth, wife to Sir John Crosby, builder of Crosby Hall  and  brought with her to Tendring Hall two daughters from her previous marriages.  Here is just a selection of the many gifts Lord Howard gave to his bride…

Ferst ij rynges of gold set with good dyamawntes, the wyche the quene yaff my master

Item, a nowche (brooch) of gold set with a fine safyre,  a grate balyse and v perles

Item, a ring of goolde with a fine rubye.

Item, my master gaff her a longe gowne of fyne cremysen velvet furred with menyver and purled with ermynes.

Item, my master gaff her vij scynnes  of fine ermynes.

Item, my master gaff her vij yerdes and di.of fyne grene velvet

item, my master gaff here a devyse of goolde with xiiii.lynkes and the ton halffe of the lynkes enamelled set with iiij rubyis and vij perles

Item, my master gaff her a lytell gerdyll of silk and goolde called a demysent and the harneys of goolde

Item, my master gaff here a coler of gold with xxxiii.roses and tonnes set on a corse of blank silk with an hanger of goolde garnished with a saphyre.

Item, my master gaff her iii. Agnus Dei of goolde.

Item, my master gaff her a cheyne of gold with a lock of gold garnished with  rubye.

Added in Sir John Howard’s own hand – And the vij.zere of the Kynge  and in the monithe of Janever I delivered my wyffe a pote of silver to pote in grene ginger that the Kynge  gaffe.

These are only a selection of the gifts, too numerous to mention here in full.    Also included were  several more gowns, rings,  gyrdles, holand clothe, Aras, cushions, silver spones, a bed with covers of cremysen damask and more..

IMG_5229.JPG

Lady Howard’s jewellery box..no not really!..this is the Cheapside Hoard but no doubt Margaret’s jewellery collection looked very similar.  

The Howards marriage endured until he fell,  loyally fighting for his king, at Bosworth.   Anne Crawford writes that ‘despite his age (he was sixty, an old man for his time) he was there in the middle of his infantry line’ and that ‘there is no doubt that if he had chosen to do so Howard could  have to terms with Henry before the battle as others did.  He could have despatched his force while remaining at home himself on the grounds of age and sickness.    The rhyme supposedly pinned to his tent the night before the battle warned him what to expect.. ‘Jockey of Norfolk be not so bold, for Dickon thy master is bought and sold’.  For Howard these considerations were irrelevant: he owed his dukedom to Richard and if the house of York was threatened, then the house of Howard would be in arms to defend it.  He died as he had lived, serving the Yorkist kings’.(6)    Crawford also wrote ‘Howard had no need to participate in the actual battle.   He was nearly 60 years old and having brought up his forces he could have delegated command to his son and remained in the rear and nobody would have thought the worst of him for it,  given the sheer physical effort and stamina required to fight on foot and in armour.  He fought of course’.(7)   As to how Margaret felt about her husband’s insistence to fight —  did she scold, did she plead, cajole  or did she accept nothing would stop her husband from what he perceived as his duty is not known.  As I wrote, at the beginning of this article, what a colossus of a man.  John Howard, bravo, you did well!.

IMG_5232.jpg

Thetford Priory Gate House – Howard’s funeral cortege would have passed through this gateway…

51815911_1438269039.jpg

John Howard’s remains were eventually removed from Thetford Priory to probably Framlingham Church at the Dissolution of the Priories.  See John Ahsdown-Hill’s ‘The Opening of the Tombs of the Dukes of Richmonds and Norfolk, Framlingham 1841’  The Ricardian vol. 18 (2008)

 

  1. John Howard first Duke of Norfolk Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Anne Crawford.
  2. Paston Letters Original Letters….ed. J Fenn p.111
  3. Yorkist Lord John Howard Duke of Norfolk  p.33 Anne Crawford
  4. Howard Household Books p.xiii ed Anne Crawford
  5. Ibid p.xxi
  6. Ibid p.xxix
  7. Yorkist Lord John Howard Duke of Norfolk p132 Anne Crawford

 

 

Dear Cairo Dweller,

Science has proved that Edward IV’s more prominent sons are not in his tomb, which was opened a few times but not when anyone could have have been placed there.

Science will shortly prove that they are not in that Westminster Abbey urn, as you have maintained for so long.

So where are you going to claim they are next? If they were in, for instance, the chapel mentioned by Henry “Tudor”‘s crony, then they couldn’t have been in the urn when you said they were.

On the left is a copy of an email from Windsor Castle. Here is Timeline of references that they compiled.

 

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: