Olga said

Well he didn’t exactly get honoured but he had a Christian burial and they would have treated his body with respect, they were Franciscan monks after all.

The epitaph near his tomb said that he “was justly called Richard the Third” and that “Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,
I succumbed to you, King Henry VI” So yes it is pretty clear Henry wanted people to remember Richard was a king, and that he was a formidable enemy. After all why would he want to lessen the impact of his rather amazing victory?
Unfortunately sometimes these things are too logical for people

Try Elizabeth Norton’s book on MB, I have been trying to read it on and off but haven’t had time, but is is good, what I have rad so far I enjoyed. There is a good academic bio by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood but it is hellishly expensive. But Jones recommends Elizabeth Norton’s bio.

Exactly, H7 wanted to underline his victory as much as possible. Painting a David vs Golith resuult to Bosworth made his claim as ruler by divine right through divine might all the more powerful a statement.

Henry was king because he deposed a cruel tyrant rather than Henry was king because everyone thought his wife was the rightful queen ( jure uxoris).

Thank you for the book info Olga, I’ll keep an eye out for them.
Henry Tulip I think was a complicated as his mother in his mind set. Although he paid all due respect to R3 as King and a formidable enemy which he was. I have heard that he alledgely dated his reign from the day before Bosworth, therefore making out that R3 was the usurper etc.

I agree Anyanka it wasn’t uncommon for a king or commoner to be mutilated by their enemy when they had been killed. Poor King Ella found that one out for himself, when he was sentenced to death by Ivar the Boneless (who ruled York at that time) and his brothers, in revenge for King Ella’s murder of their father Radnar Lodbrok. Poor Ella was sentenced to what is called the “Blood Eagle”
The blood eagle was a method of torture and execution that is sometimes mentioned in Nordic saga legends. It was performed by cutting the ribs of the victim by the spine, breaking the ribs so they resembled blood-stained wings, and pulling the lungs out through the wounds in the victim’s back.
Not at all pleasent.
Ivar alledgely killed Edmund(who was later named a saint) King of East Anglia. Edmund was tied to a tree and had arrow shot into him till he died, again I presume that death would not be a quick option and that Ivar would have told his men to prolong Edmund’s death for as long as possible.

I suppose at least with R3 death it was honourable and he died fighting to save his country. He actually holds the acolade for being the last English King to die in battle. He’s not the last one to go ito battle I think that acolade goes to George 1st.
I wonder what his court would have been like if he had won Bosworth? Would it be like it was in the days of his brother a hedonistic mix of wine, woman and song, or would it be a controlled, and quiet court?
I always had Richard down as a boring, dull and lacklustre type of person, and very different charater altogether from his brother. What were his likes and dislikes. Did he enjoy music and art? was he open to new ideas?

my laptop is stupid, and though its flattering, thinks that everything i post is so groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting that it needs to be posted twice.

bloody thing…

My laptop is named ORAC….

I think Richard’s court would be a quieter court than the one which flourished under Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville. Richard was as well educated in the social nicieties as were his siblings. He would be able to play a musical instrument like the lute and sing as well as read and write.

From what I have read the household he maintained as the de facto ruler of the north of England was a sober household which concentrated on keeping the king’s peace.

I think that a post-Bosworth Richardian court would ahve been less flambouyant but still with those feastings and follies that surrounded the king’s routines even if Richard personaly disliked them. Though if he had re-married then his wife may have livened uo his court.

Bo I actually don’t remember that part in the book, it’s been ages since I read it. I suppose she’s playing out the act of murder from different points of view there and who feels responsible

So I just realised that this part of the thread is over a year old, silly computer, but I feel I need to say what I wanted to say before the discovery so I can sleep LOL

I haven’t read the books but in the TV series The Red Queen clearly makes a decision to ask for the Princes to be killed, while the Kingmaker’s Daughter appears to sanction their murder, she then spends the rest of the series wondering if they died because of her careless agreement with the keeper. So for me it feels like another PG copout of wanting to point the finger at somebody but not committing fully to her conviction and just muddying the water and throwing in another name (Anne) into the potential who killed them pot. All I got from the sries is that it couldn’t have been Richard cause he was so noble and nice and caring and didn’t really want to be king.

PG didn’t throw Anne Neville into the mix to muddy the waters Bob. She was quite clear that (in her world) MB killed the Princes. The whole Anne Neville thing was a device to cause tension between Anne and Richard – and also to use the whole ‘punished by God’ thing because their son died. PG has apparently got a whole new generation of people blaming MB for murdering the Princes.

Nobody really cared that the Woodvilles had been Lancastrians Bo. And they didn’t ‘turn their coat’ when Elizabeth married Edward either, they had sworn fealty to Edward after St. Albans, and Jacquetta intervened to keep London safe when Margaret of Anjou came in with her troops in after Towton. Edward didn’t marry Elizabeth for at least three years after the Woodvilles bent the knee to Edward.

The nobility didn’t like the Woodvilles because they were “commoners”, but the commons liked EW and her beautiful brood of babies well enough.

Richard had choices. An ecclesiastical court was one of them. he decided to go with Stillington’s version instead.

Good one Bill. I agree it would have been good to have seen the smug look being wiped off M.B clock about “er Henry Tulip” being divinely appointed by God etc to be King. It really got my goat at the end when she looked up and said “I am Margaret Regina”

I actually wonder what would have happened if Henry Tulip had died in battle. What would become of “Margaret Regina” I certainly think Richard wouldn’t allow her to get away with her treachery against him a second time. She had already proved herself capable of doing the dirty on him. I rather think she would have been given 2 choices? Bog off into a convent or I’ll string you up. Certainly I think Sans Changer would be shorter by a head, and his son too.. He certainly would look very (Lord) Strange without a head.

One of things I find very odd about the whole battle of Bosworth is why did Henry Tulip date his reign from the day before the big showdown at Bosworth? I think it was all down to money personally. I know that there were very few Lords left after Bosworth, so I’m guessing that those who had survived on the wrong side (Richard’s) side would be willing to part with any ammount of money to 1 Save their life, land and wealth, and 2 any commoner would literely sell their soul in order to buy a title, land and wealth.
But surely the same could have been said if Richard had cut down Henry Tulip instead.

Thank you Bob I thought that was what it was. It was a case for all those who were left cough up and bow down to me as King or i’ll chop your head off. It was a quick way of making a fast buck too I suppose. Henry Tulip was quite a sneaky little turd when it came to fleecing his nobels. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before somewhere on the forum but one of his little money making scams, was to tax his nobels a set amount such as £100 those that coughed up the readies willingly clearly had more money than sence and so he said give me more, which of course as they didn’t want to lose their street cred with Henry Tulip they would pay up.
Those who pleaded poverty and more time to pay, were clearly hiding money away and so he charged them even more, a kind of late pay fine, so they too had to cough up or lose their street cred with Henry Tulip.. In short as you rightly say Bob a no win situation.
In some way I can see his point in doing it this way, as if all those who had survived Bosworth had chosen to die, either by having their head loped off or falling on their swords, although Henry Tulip would have a lot of titles, I believe in the event of no heir to a title it reverts back to the crown, he would have no money to keep them anyway, and the amount of blood fueds it would spark when Henry Tulip gave them to his freinds would be unthinkable even now..
Henry Tulip master stroke in marrying Elizabeth of York was also a form of a guarentee that the York affinity would stay true to him, as Elizabeth’s husband. It was a gamble but it was a gamble which did at least pay off. Was he a good king? Well yes and no, Yes because he brought peace but then England under Richard although tangled was more or less at peace. Richard had to deal with Buckingham’s rebellion and a few other little hiccups, but to me they were minor when you look at what Henry Tulip had to deal with.

For a start off there was his Step Uncles betrayal, then the Pretenders rebellion Lambert Simnel was seen really more as a joke but it did kind of give the people enough doubt to suspect that the Princes could well have been smuggled out of the Tower safely, the fact that Margaret of York (E4’s sister) claimed that both the boys (at different times) were in fact the Princes all added fuel to the fire. Lambert Simnel’s rebellion was based on the people involved as taking completely forgranted that the young Earl of Warwick was actually dead, when Henry Tulip produced the boy,(real Earl of Warwick) any support Lambert had melted away and the people then thought the whole thing an joke.
However Perkin’s pretence did have some credibility, and it was clear the boy was coached throughly, that even now people still question if there is a possiblity that he was indeed Richard of York. I do find it strange that Perkin was strung up whilst Lamert was put to work in the kitchen’s and became a royal falconer by the time he had died.

Bob the Builder said
i think the crux is that Henry VII held him in the tower for 2 years before executing him, and spent that time (and lots, and lots of money) trying to work out who he was – yet he did not ask the people able to determine the truth in 5 minutes flat to meet Warbeck: his ‘sisters’. the conclusion is stark – Henry VII thought there was a good chance they would confirm his identity, and then Henry would have a problem.

Warbeck was released from the Tower and lodged at Henry’s court for some time, he was only sent back to the Tower after an escape attempt. It is highly doubtful that Elizabeth of York failed to say anything to her husband about him in the 18 months Warbeck was at court.

Bob the Builder said

Boleyn said
…I always had Richard down as a boring, dull and lacklustre type of person, and very different charater altogether from his brother. What were his likes and dislikes. Did he enjoy music and art? was he open to new ideas?

my understanding is that the current view is that he was quite well read, and well read enough to annotate his books with his own notes. a much quieter kind of chap than Edward IV, possibly a bit earnest, possibly without the social skills/personal political antennae of Edward, maybe a bit of a prude – but who was dilligent, conciencous etc… i’m pretty sure Murray-Kendall wrote that he liked jewellery and clothing, though whether he liked them because he liked them, or whether he liked them because they made him look rich and important is something i don’t know…

i’d be interested to know what there is on his views of religious/political/philosphical issues – his attitudes to religious reform/Protestantism/Levellers, or the role of democracy (or at least the 15th centurys version of democracy…) in governence etc…

We know a lot about Richard’s personal books – he had quite a few – there is an excellent book “Richard III’s Books” which I have, but is now out of print and changing hands for megabucks over the Internet, which lists all the books known to have been in his possession. They range from military books, books on chivalry, to copies of ancient Roman texts and religious works. A lot were in Latin and, as Bob mentions, Richard put his name in many of them or added bits. He also had a copy of an early English translation of the New Testament by Wycliffe, which is rather unusual.

Many of his books were second-hand which tells us it was the texts he was interested in. They show evidence of being well-read too.