Jasmine, I’m starting to learn that. Dicky does seem to have a certain charm that perhaps I refused to see. I have never believed he was responsible for killing the Princes, basically because he had no reason to kill them. I don’t agree with how he took the throne, but I do understand why he did.
It’s just sad that he never really had the chance to prove his worth as a King.

Olga I’d be interested in seeing his work on George, he another of history’s unknown or little known about people.
Was he truly as bitter and jealous as history (or what little I know of him I should say) paints him to be?
Did he truly love Isabel?
Did he truly think he could be King? Did he believe the lies that were spoken about his brother Edward, being the bastard son of an archer (I believe)?

Bo the argument for Edward IV being illegitimate is seriously weak. The initial rumours were spread by Warwick (and perhaps George) but basically no-one believed them at the time. One contemporary, Mancini, does say that Richard also used the rumour after he deposed Edward V, but no-one else has mentioned that.

Hicks’ book on George is very dry, his later books are an easier read (that was his first) Still it is an essential study. John Ashdown-Hill has also just written a new one on George which is very good. Both books are sympathetic too.
John has a rather interesting theory that some of Richard’s alleged personality traits actually come from George, as Jasper Tudor spent a year with George when he was rebelling against Edward. It is worth thinking about. But we can’t say he was aspiring to be king, there is no real evidence of that. Only that he wanted his brother to remove the Woodvilles from power.

Actually I find George more interesting than Richard, but that is because I spend far too much time with Richard. Edward I am not terribly fond of but I have yet to study him at length.

Bob the Builder said
personally i think the study of Richard III and Henry VII is the most interesting, informative, illustrative study you could do into medieval English history – it goes from perhaps the high point of individual aristocratic power and the King being ‘first among equals’ to the destruction of the military power of the nobility and the King just being ‘first’ in merely 25 years. it is a stunningly important period in English/British history.

Spot on Bob. Henry Tudor is really overlooked in that sense I think.

Boleyn said

…Bob I concur with Olga Henry Tulip acheivements at Bosworth have seemingly been forgotten, he was very much the under-dog and he overcame what I believe to be impossible odds to end up the victor. Dicky’s army was far superior to Henry Tulip’s, in I believe Henry Tulip’s army was made up from a rag tag bunch of French or Brittany convicts and a few Welsh farmers who he had enlisted from his march through the Welsh Marches on the way to Bosworth. Most people (Welsh or otherwise) so I’ve read somewhere, hadn’t got a bloody clue who he was when he turned up in Milford Haven and probably didn’t care either.

i don’t think Henry Tudor acheived anything at Bosworth – he was (imv) merely the beneficiary of bad luck and bad judgement on Richards part. without boggy ground Richard would have got (lethally?) closer to HT, and if he’d had the sense God gave a Turnip he’d have had the Stanleys’ propping up the foundations of the Tower of London by December 1483. Henry Tudor didn’t even trap Richard through politics – Stanley had the choice of supporting a man who had no liking for him and who both distrusted him and had had a previous run in with him, or he could support his step-son. no input required whatsoever…

Henry Tudors acheivements as Henry VII are however, spectacular – as you say, on the day after Bosworth he was an absolute nobody who’s ‘claim by conquest’ amounted to having been present when Richard III commited suicide, yet he reigned for 24 years, he died in his bed, his son succeeded him without the drawing of a single sword, and he utterly changed the power dynamics of the King and the nobility forever.

Bob the Builder said

Boleyn said

…Bob I concur with Olga Henry Tulip acheivements at Bosworth have seemingly been forgotten, he was very much the under-dog and he overcame what I believe to be impossible odds to end up the victor. Dicky’s army was far superior to Henry Tulip’s, in I believe Henry Tulip’s army was made up from a rag tag bunch of French or Brittany convicts and a few Welsh farmers who he had enlisted from his march through the Welsh Marches on the way to Bosworth. Most people (Welsh or otherwise) so I’ve read somewhere, hadn’t got a bloody clue who he was when he turned up in Milford Haven and probably didn’t care either.

i don’t think Henry Tudor acheived anything at Bosworth – he was (imv) merely the beneficiary of bad luck and bad judgement on Richards part. without boggy ground Richard would have got (lethally?) closer to HT, and if he’d had the sense God gave a Turnip he’d have had the Stanleys’ propping up the foundations of the Tower of London by December 1483. Henry Tudor didn’t even trap Richard through politics – Stanley had the choice of supporting a man who had no liking for him and who both distrusted him and had had a previous run in with him, or he could support his step-son. no input required whatsoever…

Henry Tudors acheivements as Henry VII are however, spectacular – as you say, on the day after Bosworth he was an absolute nobody who’s ‘claim by conquest’ amounted to having been present when Richard III commited suicide, yet he reigned for 24 years, he died in his bed, his son succeeded him without the drawing of a single sword, and he utterly changed the power dynamics of the King and the nobility forever.

I agree with the shocking bad luck on Dicky’s part, it was. I wonder why or how Bosworth came to be the chosen place for the final showdown between Dicky and as Olga said (Dicky’s insult for Henry Tulip) the Welsh Milksop? Surely given how many battles Dicky had fought in he would have known that Bosworth was unsuitable for even throwing a hissy fit in let alone a full blown battle. Dicky had the advantage of knowing more or less every sod and blade of grass of the whole of England, he had fought battles in many places and would have known surely that such boggy ground would be unsuitable for any form of combat, but there again maybe he saw the boggy ground as an advantage in doing away with Henry Tulip once and for all..
Either way we will never know what was going on in Dicky’s head at the time.
I also agree that Henry Tulip ruled without drawing a sword, but he did have a lot of mental stress to contend with, the uprising of his (step) uncle being one, and of course the pretenders.

I recently attended a talk by an expert in Medieval warfare who said that a charge such as Richard made with his household knights would have to have been discussed beforehand. It would have been impossible, during the heat of battle, to suddenly decide to take off with 500 or so mounted knights. On that basis, Richard would have planned such a charge if the opportunity presented itself, it would have been discussed during his ‘war council’ and Stanley was probably aware of it. Under no circumstances, according to the expert, would it have been a spontaneous gesture.

You’re right, Olga, it was a good death and as a knight, one Richard would have preferred to the alternative. However, I think he was confident of winning Bosworth and he came within feet of achieving it. To think he unhorsed John Cheney who was supposedly over 6 ft tall and big with it, and killed Henry’s standard-bearer who would have been next to Henry – he almost made it and would have done so but for William Stanley.

As to why they fought at Bosworth – it was simply a matter of geography. Henry landed in Wales and marched through it trying to get to London. Richard was at Nottingham (in the centre of England) waiting for information as to Henry’s directlon of march, so that he could intercept him and prevent him reaching the capital. Leicester was also a Yorkist town at this point and supported Richard – they sent men to fight for him at Bosworth, so Richard’s route from Nottingham to intercept Henry led him to Leicester and thence to Bosworth.

Thank you Jasmine.
I agree that battle tactics would have been throughly discussed before hand, and yes “Sans Changer” Stanley would have known exactly what battle plans and formations would have been decided upon, but I also feel that part of Dicky’s charge towards Henry Tulip was the signal to “Sans Changer” to join in and cut Henry Tulip down. “Sans Changer” I think was ordered to stay “Parke Firme” until that point. If my lousy stinking memory serves (although at this point I have no idea where it actually is) did not Dicky have “Sans Changer’s” son as a type of hostage to guarentee “Sans Changer’s loyalty so that when this moment came he would join in with the big push towards Henry Tulip?

I agree that there is no way that Dicky’s charge towards Henry Tulip was a spontaneous act, as Dicky had fought in many battles and would have known that such an action would have been foolhardy in the extreme, it simply wouldn’t be considered as cricket. He would have known that such an action without any of his other soldiers knowing what he was planning to do with be doomed to failure.

I think he realised when he had cut down William Brandon (who I believe was Henry Tulip’s Standard Bearer) that Sans’s Changer was not going to fight for him and that his death was imminent, so decided that if he was going to die, let it be with a sword in his hand, as Olga rightly says.

To me at least (having got to know Dicky a little better) although he died that day, he was the real hero of that day too. A man of pure courage and determination, and a good King.
Bob pointed out to me that Henry Tulip acheived nothing that day and to be honest he’s right. Yes he won the crown, but he won it because Dicky was betrayed by his own men. If “Sans Changer” had remained loyal and had given Dicky’s the back up which I believe Dicky had ordered him to do, Dicky would have won and Henry Tulip would have been just another wannabe King with ideas above his station.

As for Dicky marrying EoY I don’t think so. He had gone to a lot of time and effort to declare the whole of the Eddy4/Woodville Marriage and sham and the children bastards, and for him to then turn around and marry EoY would be a complete oxymoron. Think about it Dicky says “Look due to Eddy’s prior “marriage” with Eleanor Butler, Lizzy Woodville was in fact Eddy’s wh*re and her children bastards, so I’m taking the throne.” and then after Anne Neville’s death turning round and saying “I’m going to marry Liz of York” Would the people except that he had married someone who he had named a bastard?
I think he was fond of EoY, but marriage to her was out of the question, he would have married a forgien princess. Here’s a thought he could well have negotiated with Spain to marry Joanna of Castile/Aragon she was born in 1479, and would have been ready for marriage by 1492/3, and could have therotically produced a couple of children by 1495.

I’m not talking about whether he was fond of her Bo – although there is evidence they got along which is strange if you subscribe to the theory he killed her brothers – just that there were contemporary rumours, or a rumour, that he intended to marry her. There is only one source, as usual, which is Croyland, who wrote slightly later.
Baldwin thinks it is a possibility, his work on Richard III is solid. I respect Baldwin. He does think outside the box, but he is also a completely sympathetic and unbiased historian.
Who knows maybe he heard about the secret dispensation issued for Henry Tudor and Elizabeth and was heard saying something. They had a dispensation issued in 1483 I think, under sort-of assumed names.
The negotiations with Portugal were for “a daughter of Edward IV” and there were five of them. He had a good bargaining chip with Cecily as well.
Elizabeth was considered the heir to the thrones by disaffected Yorkists. Even with her brothers out of the way, the discontented will always find a focus and she was actually a threat. He should have married her off earlier really, it was largely for the love of her the English accepted Henry Tudor so readily. And you know, victory at Bosworth, chosen by God!

Sharon said

I saw this yesterday. Don’t know if it is true, but it is interesting.
http://sunnesandroses.blogspot…..l?spref=fb

it looks pretty solid to me – the only ‘possible’ is John de la Pole, killed in 1487 at Stoke Field with, to my knowledge, no known grave. to be him of course, H7 would have had to find him amongst the bodies, take him to Leicester, dig up R3, put de la Pole in R3’s grave, get rid of R3’s body and then, at some point in the future, shell out for a tomb on the spot but engrave it with R3’s name.

i’m sure thats very likely. unfortunately, dripping sarcasm never really comes across in the written word…

Thank you for sharing this article with us Sharon I found it very interesting.

I have found this which I found quite interesting too about Dickys burial after the battle of Bosworth.
In 1485, following his death in battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field, Richard III’s body was thrown across a horse and brought to Leicester where it was put on display for several days, after which it was buried in the Greyfriars Church.

Ten years later, Henry VII paid £50 and £10-1s for a tomb ‘of many-coloured marble’ to be built.
This appears to be a fair price for a high-status alabaster tomb. For comparison, also in 1495 £66 was paid for the tomb of Cecily Neville, Richard’s Mother.
An epitaph to Richard, which may be contemporary but appears never to have been attached to the tomb, is known from a handwritten version by Thomas Hawley, who died in 1557.

The tomb is presumed to have been demolished along with the Church following its dissolution after 1536.
An account arose that when the tomb was destroyed, Richard’s bones were thrown into the River Soar by the nearby Bow Bridge. In 1920, C.J Billson regarded this as a mere legend and highly improbable, a view endorsed by David Baldwin in 1986.

I think it’s highly unlikely that H7 would go to all the trouble of finding Dicky’s grave in Blackfriars, turfing him out and planting John De la Pole in his place. Especially since H7 was tighter than a Penguin’s Chuff when it came to shelling out any money for anything. So why 10years down the line would H7 fork out all that money (which in today’s value of money would be thousands) for a memorial tomb for Dicky if it wasn’t Dicky in there? Plus H7 forked out another large sum of money for Dicky’s mum tomb.

Did H7 apart from stripping Dicky naked and having his minions parade his corpse through Leicester actually mourn Dicky and have 1 of his minions attend Dicky’s interment? Surely despite Dicky being H7 enemy etc, he would have shown him the proper respect due to him, despite H7 abuse of Dicky’s body?
Even the Earl of Warwick’s body was shown the proper respect, by E4 and his brothers despite the fact they were the bitterest of enemies towards the end.
Did EoY have a hand in H7’s change of heart in putting up a fitting memorial for Dicky?

Strangely enough Elizabeth 1 seemed to inherit his miserly ways, too. I believe the law of the land back then was that sailors would receive their wage only after they had stepped foot on land so to get around this she kept them on board ship, whether that was out at sea or in harbour and no one could disembark (save for guests/Ambassadors or paying customers) until they received word from the Queen. which I understand could be anything up to a year after they landed and even then their wages were slow at being paid.

The River soar theory/Legend was also used when Mary Tulip came to the throne in 1553. Rumour has it that she unearthed her father’s bones and threw them in the River Soar. A pretty story possibly started in Victorian times, they were always one for stories of the macabre etc. In anycase we know it to be just that a story, for in the later half of the 1800’s or maybe early 1900’s? Lard’s arse Tomb was opened and his Skeleton was found in his coffin undisturbed until that moment. Hid thigh bone was measured and it was only then the world really found out that King Lard Arse was as tall as the history books painted him, or something like that. (my brain has chewed though it’s leash today. Be afraid it’s on the loose)

I’ve got a good interview with John Ashdown-Hill on Richard’s burial Bo, I’ll send it to you. It explains it in depth.

But, anyway to adress some of your comments. Henry VII didn’t abuse Richard’s body. Yes there is evidence of two post-mortem wounds, well I’m not sure we have evidence of exactly when the wound was inflicted on him. The evidence that they are post-mortem is solely based on the fact that those areas would have been protected by plate during the battle, but there is no evidence they were done when he was actually being transported on the horse, which is what is being put about. Basically to make out like he was paraded through leicester while everyone stuck into him. There is no eivdence of that, only that he was transported naked.
Furthermore the UoL is saying he was buried with his hands tied with no actual evidence other than his hands were crossed in the grave. Much of this is being done, in my cynical opinion, to drum up sympathy which is good for tourism. The abuse of Richard’s body has long been touted by Ricardians as evidence of ‘evil’ Henry VII when he wasn’t actually there, he had left and sent some of his soldiers to find Richard on the battlefield and bring him into Leicester for display and then burial.
Yes he was naked, he was probably stripped by looters well before he was found. Yes he was filthy, and transported on a horse, but how else were they to get him out of there? Yes they might have been nice and covered him up but they didn’t bother. As for defling the corpse, Henry would have instructed them to bring him back intact as he had to display his corpse to prove he was dead and he had to be recognisable. He was displayed naked, which was normal and had been done to many others before him – although something to cover his genitals may have been nice. But Henry had left by then.
John Ashdown-Hill thinks the Franciscan monks asked for his body and then took him to be buried. The grave was too small so they arranged him a bit awkwardly. It was hot and the body had been out in the sun for two days so they made haste.

I very highly doubt EoY influenced Henry into commissioning the tomb. Perkin Warbeck was at large and Henry wanted to win some York loyalty most likely. he still spent a packet on it of course. And no I doubt he mourned him. Why would he? He spent most of his life hiding from Richard’s older brother, I doubt he was overly fond of the York men, who also murdered poor old Henry VI.
As for respecting him, I am sure he did. The Tudors had a high regard for royalty after all. I think I’ve told you MB had a Yorkist servant in her house who would go about shouting at anyone who insulted Richard III, and Margaret used to humour him and encourage him.