murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Archive for the tag ““Tudors””

Why Shakespeare repeated the Tudors’ fake news….

Elizabeth l and ShakespeareAs Ricardians, we all know that Shakespeare toed the Tudor line. He repeated the falsehoods of More and the like, and labelled Richard III for all time as a deformed monster. But this article discusses the circumstances that compelled the Bard to write as he did. Well worth a read.

 

Advertisements

Look who’s coming to dinner….

Nicola Tallis

Nicola Tallis

The following is taken from this interview in History Extra

“Q: Which three historical figures would you invite to a dinner party and why?

  1. “Queen Anne Neville. Frustratingly little is known of her life. I’d love to know if Anne was happily married to Richard III and how she felt about the events of 1483, when King Edward IV unexpectedly died and Richard declared himself king of England.
  2. “King Louis XIV of France. He has always fascinated me, and even more so since watching the TV series Versailles! All of the intrigues of the French court and Louis’s various mistresses enthrall me. Plus, I have always wanted to ask him what inspired him when creating the Chateau de Versailles.
  3. “Anne Frank. Her story is such a sad one, and to have the opportunity to speak to her about her experiences in hiding during the Second World War would be very moving.”

I don’t know that I would wish such a small dinner party to be a ‘moving experience’, so maybe Anne Frank would not be on my list, but then, is not Anne Neville’s story a moving one as well? So, this dinner party is going to be a quiet affair, I think, unless Louis XIV runs riot.

What Richard’s queen might have to say is bound to be of intense interest to Ricardians, of course. I hope that she would recall the wonderful days before 1483 spoiled everything for her and for Richard. And please do not think I brush Anne Frank aside, because I certainly do not. I would just hope to find she still had a lighter side, a trace of her original self, undamaged by her dreadful experiences. Maybe she would rather seek her lost, happier self, too.

Anyway, the above guest list has been compiled by historian Nicola Tallis, in an interview connected with her appearance at the York and Winchester History Weekends this October. See the above link for more details. Ms Tallis appears to be mainly interested in the Tudor queens and period, so perhaps it is strange that she would not invite, say, Elizabeth I, to dinner!

The lost palace of Sheen…er, Richmond….

Sheen Palace

Sheen Palace

This link will take you to a very interesting and information article about Richmond Palace, which was formerly the Palace of Sheen. It led a very chequered life, being destroyed by a king’s grief and then by fire. It was also the scene of Henry VII’s death.

Richmond Palace - Wyngaerde

 

Dig the “Tudors” at Sudeley Castle

Oh, for an opportunity to do this literally and test the theory that Harriss, Fields, Ashdown-Hill and even Dan Jones have expounded, with varying probabilities. I would quite literally dig up a “Tudor” somewhere – from quite a selection – and then Owain Tudor in Hereford for comparison, if possible. You don’t meed to ask “Y-“?

Here is the event at Sudeley Castle

Bah! Henry “Tudor” was not Earl of Richmond, and certainly not DUKE….!

private lives of the tudorsI have just made the mistake of watching The Private Lives of the Tudors, which is based on the book of the same name by Tracy Borman. It’s bad enough that Henry Tudor is first referred to as the Earl of Richmond, but then Dr Susan Doran INSISTS upon referring to him as the DUKE of Richmond! The what? He was denied that earldom when Edward IV took it into Royal hands*, and at that time there was no such thing as a Duke of Richmond. Yet the odious and presumptuous Tudor fellow is elevated twice in about one minute! One day they’ll get it right…erm, and the Titanic will make it safely to New York, of course.

* by an attainder passed in 1471 (Complete Peerage)

 

 

PS Thanks to EM:

It was tomorrow, August 22nd, in 1485, that Richard III was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth, but Henry Tudor, in his first parliament as King Henry VII, in an early example of “fake news,” made the claim that he was really already king on August 21st. This meant that he could declare anyone who fought with King Richard to be a traitor, execute them, and seize their lands. English documents, however, are often dated by regnal year (i.e, “the sixth day of May in the tenth year of the reign of Edward the Fourth”), where each regnal year begins on what everyone agrees is the anniversary of the first day of the king’s reign. For 500 years, record keepers and historians have maintained that the regnal years of Henry VII all started on August 22nd, the day of the battle. But here Sir Laurence Reynforth dates his last will and testament on August 21st, giving the year as both Anno Domini 1490, and as the sixth year of the reign of Henry VII, in what I think may be the only example showing that Henry Tudor’s fake news of 1485 was imposed year after year on that most pedestrian of matters, the date.

Another myth about men “not breaking oaths to Richard”. . . .

Henry's route through Wales in 1485

Well, I’ve heard the tale of Sir Rhys ap Thomas hiding under a bridge for Henry to march over him on the way to Bosworth, thus not breaking Sir Rhys’s oath of loyalty to Richard, but this is a new one on me!

Rhys ap Thomas under the bridge

Now we have this new variation, from  http://tudortimes.co.uk/military-warfare/1485-battle-of-bosworth/henrys-march :-

“. . .when Henry, now strengthened by Sir Rhys ap Thomas, and a contingent of men from North Wales, reached the town of Shrewsbury, to cross the Severn into England, the town gates were closed against him and the town bailiff, Thomas Mitton, announced that, as he had sworn allegiance to Richard, he could not allow Richmond to pass.

“The closure of the town of Gloucester to the Lancastrians in 1471, preventing the crossing of the Severn, had proved disastrous for them – would the same be the case for Henry at Shrewsbury? Henry assured the bailiff that he and his men would do no damage and that they would not interfere with his oath, but Mitton was adamant.

“The next morning however, there was a change of heart. . .due to the intervention of Sir William Stanley.

“Henry and his men passed through – apparently with Henry stepping his horse carefully over Mitton’s body, to preserve the word of the man’s oath – although the same story is told in other circumstances of other men, so may be apocryphal. Impressed by Henry, or perhaps cowed by Sir William, the town then paid £4 4s 10d for soldiers for him. . .”

shrewsbury_traitors_gate_640

               Traitors’ Gate, Shrewsbury town wall. Let’s hope it was the one Henry passed beneath!

But the above site is not the original source for this story. There is an earlier one.

“An interesting anecdote of Thomas Mytton is related in the following extract from Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i, p. 245, describing the incidents of the Earl of Richmond’s (Henry VII) march through Shropshire to Bosworth Field:- “He delayed his march to Shrewsbury till he was master of Forton and Montford Bridge, two points of main importance to his designs, as he was thus provided with a passage into the midland counties, even though this town should shut her gates upon him. Having secured that bridge, which, if the Salopians had been hearty in the cause of Richard, they would have broken down, his army encamped upon Forton Heath, and he despatched messengers to Shrewsbury to summon the town. When they arrived at the foot of the Welsh bridge, they found the place in a posture of defence; the gates shut, the portcullis let down, and the bailiffs within ready to give their answer. “The senior of these magistrates for that year was Thomas Mytton, Esq., whom we have lately seen as Sheriff of the county, engaged in the arrest of the Duke of Buckingham. He is described in an old chronicle as ‘ a stout wise gentleman’, and made answer that he knew the Earl for no King, but ‘ only Kynge Rychard, whose lyffetenants he and hys fellowe weare, and before he shoulde enter there, he should goe over hys belly’, meaninge thereby, continues our authority, ‘ that he would be slayne to the grounde and so to (be) roon over (by) him before he entryd; and that he protested vehemently upon the othe he dad taken.’

“Much conversaton, we may suppose, ensued, but Mr. Mytton continuing resolute, the Earl ‘ retornyd’, says our chronicle, ‘ wyth hys companye backe agayn to Forton . . . .’ On the following morning the negotiation with the Bailiffs of Shrewsbury was renewed, and the Earl assured the magistrates that he did not mean to hurt the town or any of its inhabitants, but only desired to pass on to try his right to the Crown. We are told that Mr. Mytton began to yeald to these suggestions, but that on account of the oath he had so lately taken to oppose the entrance of Richmond into Shrewbury, he adopted the ingenious expedient of lying down on the ground and permitting the Earl to step over him. Thereupon the portcullis was drawn up, and the Earl and his retinue admitted within the gates, to the general joy of the inhabitants, and received, we are assured, ‘ with an Ave chaire (Xaipe), and God speede the wel! the streets being strowed with hearbes and flowers, and their doores adorned with greene boughs, in testimony of a true hartie reception.'”

Well, Henry was still some way from Bosworth, so I imagine there are a few more such myths waiting in the wings. They’ll be throwing their cloaks over puddles next! Or dropping their garters!

 

Um, where’s Lionel of Clarence in this scheme of things….?

Tudors

Well, well, this author appears to have expunged Lionel of Clarence and his line from the annals of history, in order to make the Lancastrian claim to the throne senior to that of York. When, thanks to Lionel, it ended up the other way around. Lionel was the 2nd son of Edward III, Lancaster the 3rd, and York the 4th. Put 2nd and 4th together, and you have something rather more superior than the 3rd. Yes? Yes.

 

Thomas Stanley, or, the man with the evil beard….

Thomas Stanley

For anyone interested in knowing what made slippery Lord Stanley tick, here is an excellent evaluation, save that Sir William was executed for refusing to oppose “Perkin”, not for supporting him. The man was a born opportunist and survivor. Full stop. Oh, and he had an evil beard!

 

Where did the Tudors come from….?

HENRY AND MODEL OF OLD LONDON BRIDGE

For those of us who may wish to know where the name Tudor comes from, here’s a thorough explanation.

 

Royal genealogy before it happens (2)

Seven years ago, before this blog officially began, a letter was published in the Ricardian Bulletin about the common Edward III descent of the Duke and Duchess, as she soon became, of Cambridge through the Gascoigne-Fairfax line.

Now it has been announced that Prince Henry of Wales and the American actress Rachel (Meghan) Markle, or Duke and Duchess of Sussex as they are to become, are to marry on May 19. Tracing her royal descent has been more difficult until this genealogical outline appeared in the Mail on Sunday, back to Sir Ralph Bowes (1480-1516/7). Bowes’ wife, Elizabeth Clifford, was descended from Edward III through the same Mortimer-Percy marriage as were the Cambridges.

In this case, we can see some active participation in “Tudor” and Civil War history as well as Scottish royal descent in both lines – thus Robert I is also a significant common ancestor (twice, along with his brother Edward). The Rising of the North was, of course, in 1569.

Here is more on her lineage and here we present a more complete pedigree for them both. Hopefully, Prince Henry being a second son with red hair and a beard is not a bad omen.

{as published in the March 2018 Bulletin}

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: