Ricardian Bulletin - Richard III Society

Ricardian
Bulletin
Contents
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
13
19
21
21
23
26
28
31
33
35
37
38
42
44
47
49
51
56
Spring 2007
From the Chairman
Strategy for the Future
Society News and Notices
Media Retrospective
Reputation Management by Richard Van Allen
New Members
A Death Warrant for the Princes? by Wendy Moorhen
News and Reviews
Changes in the Perception of King Richard by Wendy Moorhen
Celebrating 50 Years: York Minster and a Service of Thanksgiving
Adopt a Stone
Ricardian Heroes: The Australian Connection by John Saunders
The Man Himself by Keith Dockray
Incest and Richard III, Bigamy and Edward IV by H.A. Kelly
A Little Known Portuguese Source for the Murder of the Princes by António S. Marques
Lord Olivier - A Closet Ricardian? Part 2 by Geoffrey Wheeler
Logge Notes and Queries: Service and Return by Lesley Boatwright
Obituaries and Recently Deceased Members
Correspondence
The Barton Library
Report on Society Events
Future Society Events
Branch and Group Contacts
Branches and Groups
Calendar
Contributions
Contributions are welcomed from all members. All contributions should be sent to the Technical Editor, Lynda Pidgeon.
Bulletin Press Dates
15 January for spring issue; 15 April for summer issue; 15 July for autumn issue; 15 October for winter issue.
Articles should be sent well in advance.
Bulletin & Ricardian Back Numbers
Back issues of the The Ricardian and Bulletin are available from Judith Ridley. If you are interested in obtaining any
back numbers, please contact Mrs Ridley to establish whether she holds the issue(s) in which you are interested.
For contact details see back inside cover of the Bulletin
The Ricardian Bulletin is produced by the Bulletin Editorial Committee,
Printed by St Edmundsbury Press. © Richard III Society, 2007
1
From the Chairman
A
t last we can look back on our year of anniversary celebrations and see what a successful
year 2006 was. However, whilst the many events and the four bumper issues of the Bulletin
tell me that the Society is in good shape, I also know that there is no room for complacency.
There is still much to do to ensure that our successes continue. At the AGM, I said that we would
be reviewing our plans and strategy for the future, and our first thoughts on the subject are
outlined on page 3. We will keep you fully informed as matters progress, of course. Naturally, a
part of the strategy will be our approach to public relations and I would urge you all to read
Richard Van Allen’s article on page 8.
Just from looking at the contents page of this Bulletin, you can see that we have yet another
informative and highly entertaining magazine. Keith Dockray concludes his comparison of
Richard III and Henry V, and finds some ‘unexpected’ similarities. There is a report on an edition
of the television programme Castle in the Country, in which, it was claimed, a letter written by
King Richard had been discovered, a letter that suggested his complicity in the ‘murder’ of the
princes! As you will read, this was a classic case of the danger of jumping to conclusions. Also,
Geoffrey Wheeler concludes his series on Lord Olivier, and it’s reassuring to learn that, under the
greasepaint, the greatest portrayer in living memory of Shakespeare’s Richard III had a more
realistic and enlightened opinion of the king. In another article, we celebrate the contributions to
the Society of Philip Lindsay and Pat Bailey and their links with Australia. Like me, many
members will have fond memories of Pat, while many will know about Philip through his books.
Mention of Australia reminds me to wish Australasian Ricardians every success for their
convention. This year, the meeting, which is held every two years, is taking place in New
Zealand on 13 – 15 April and I know we all look forward to hearing about it in the summer
Bulletin. Actually, 15 April looks like being a pretty busy day for many Ricardians, with not only
the closing day of the convention but the final day of the Study Weekend in York and the day of
the Scottish Branch’s Annual Lecture at Edinburgh Castle.
The Society is sorry to learn of the death of Dorothy Mitchell in York. With her ‘Friends of
King Richard’ she may not have seen eye to eye with us, but she was a staunch Ricardian and her
passing is one less defender of Richard’s reputation.
This year, I will complete my first five years as your chairman. It’s been an exciting and
challenging time which has seen many changes and improvements to the way the Society
operates. With your support, I look forward to continuing in the post for some time yet. As I’ve
said before, there is still much to do.
It’s been a very odd winter here in Britain. In fact, it may well have given us a miss this year.
As I write this in early February, it feels as though spring has arrived well ahead of itself. Indeed,
there have been clumps of daffodils visible on my way to work since early January. All down to
global warming, no doubt. I wonder what Richard would have made of it? Whatever, we must
not allow the vagaries of the weather to stop us from making sure that 2007 is another successful
year for the Society and for the promotion of the cause of good King Richard.
Phil Stone
2
Future Steps:
The Next Five Years
I
n 2002, we embarked on a major review of the Society under the title Towards the Next Fifty
Years. This focused on the years up to our fiftieth anniversary which we so successfully
celebrated last year. Now it’s time to make sure that we have another fifty years to look forward
to.
Richard III was, of course, an innovative and effective manager, both as duke of Gloucester
and king of England. It has been said of him that ‘to an extent that is wholly exceptional amongst
his contemporaries, Richard shaped his own estate and his own career. Richard is unique in this
period for taking a strategic view … and for developing and implementing a plan. It makes him
strangely modern.’ It should not be surprising, therefore, that the Society that bears his name and
exists to promote his positive qualities should be equally serious in having a strategy and plan for
the future.
Few, if any, organisations in today’s world can afford to stand still, and we are no exception.
To survive in a rapidly changing world, we need always to be seeking ways to improve the way
we do things, how to retain and attract members and to be financially sound enough to enable us
to achieve our objectives. We have made a number of significant and necessary changes over the
past five years which have increased our efficiency and saved us money: bringing our sales and
membership functions in-house, finding better means to distribute our publications and making
realistic decisions about membership rates. The Bulletin has been redesigned and expanded, The
Ricardian has become an annual publication, through a more focused public relations approach
we have made a positive impact on the media, and we have taken the AGM out of London to
York and Bristol. We now need to consolidate and build on these achievements. So, we are
looking ahead to the next five years and beyond to identify what we want to do and to ensure that
we have the resources and structures to achieve them.
We are evaluating a broad range of areas and activities that cover the remit of our Society.
And in doing so we will seek to consolidate improvements already made to the Society’s internal
governance, finances, membership services and communication. This will enable us to build on
our impressive research achievements and increase our capacity to do more, which will give us
the gravitas, respect and confidence to develop a more effective publicity strategy to enable us to
be even more proactive in promoting the positive case for King Richard and to challenge more
effectively the negative representations of the king.
We have made a number of significant and necessary changes over the past five years: A
more detailed report will be published in the summer issue of the Bulletin and, in the autumn, the
Annual Report will be accompanied by the first draft of our strategy. This will be open to
comment and suggestions by the membership and will be debated at the Annual General
Meeting.
The Executive Committee
3
Society News and Notices
Executive Committee – the Low Down
As the new Secretary, I am keen to enhance my role as a link between the Executive Committee
(EC) and you, the members. With this in mind, I would like to give you a regular overview of
what the EC are up to, current concerns and issues being discussed – so here is the inaugural EC
‘low down’ from meetings held in October and December 2006.
EC meetings are usually lively and topics covered range from the more mundane but vital
‘business’ to the exciting ideas for new developments and offerings/services to members. During
autumn 2006 the accounts kept us occupied. As you know, we needed a new auditor to overview
and authorise them before the AGM. Paul was keen also to introduce some procedures which
would make the accounts far more accurate. In October he requested that all expenditure have a
detailed explanation for accuracy and to make it easier to locate recoverable expenses. Individual
credits too should be itemised, especially if lump sums were being paid in.
Membership is a regular item – after all, what is the Society without its members?
Membership is buoyant at present, with 50 new members joining between June and October and
a further 46 between October and December (excluding the American Branch). The bulk of new
members joined via the website. Branches and groups are regularly discussed and in December
changes in the EC of the American Branch were noted.
At the October meeting we held a ‘post mortem’ on the Members’ Weekend and the year’s
celebratory events. All the events in 2006 had proved hugely successful in content and
attendance. It was also noted that there had been a good spread of ages and many new faces
which was encouraging. However, we discussed lessons learned from the experience and how
things could be improved and developed. We are currently looking at ways to continue
enhancing the AGM to make it more exciting and rewarding for members.
Any Other Business can bring all sorts of items to the table. At the last two meetings they
ranged from reporting on the Library move up north to the challenge for the Society of producing
some fresh academic work on Richard III, and to a new publicity stand. Publicity and PR took up
much of December’s AOB but I’ll not dwell on it here as it appears elsewhere in the Bulletin in
far more detail. Suffice it to say, however, that the website has been very successful in promoting
the Society in media circles as the first port of call for information and advice on Richard –
which of course is where the Society should be.
If you have any questions on any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me – it is your
Society!
Jane Trump
Important - Please Send ALL Bulletin Items to Lynda Pidgeon
There has been some confusion recently over where items should be sent to now that there is no
longer a single Bulletin Editor. There are so many addresses on the back page it is unclear who
you actually need, so to make things simple we ask that ALL items should be sent to me as Coordinator. I will then record receipt of your letter, article, report, etc., and forward it to the
relevant member of the Bulletin team for editing, proofing, etc. Team members will then pass the
items back to me as Technical Editor to be prepared for the printer.
If you wish to include a photograph, will you please note that the original photograph will be
required, unless you have the technology to download it from your camera on to your computer
as a j-peg, which you can then e-mail to me. Unfortunately scanned photos do not reproduce
sufficiently well. If you want your photo returned please enclose a stamped addressed envelope.
4
Anyone tentatively thinking of writing articles can consult Peter Hammond first with their
ideas. His details are on the back cover.
Lynda Pidgeon, Bulletin Co-ordinator and Technical Editor
Articles and Arrangements for The Ricardian
As already reported, The Ricardian will be distributed in early June. It will be sent separately
from the summer Bulletin to UK members but the two publications will be packaged together for
overseas members. In the meantime herewith is a list of the articles that will be appearing in
Volume 17:
 Richard III, Tydeus of Calydon and their boars in the Latin oration of Archibald
Whitlaw, Archdeacon of St Andrews, at Nottingham on 12 September 1484 - Livia
Visser-Fuchs
 Richard III and the court of requests - Hannes Kleineke
 Slain dogs, the dead man and editorial constructs - Alison Hanham and B.M. Cron
 ‘al ful of fresshe floures whyte and reede’: the jewellery of Margaret of York and its
meaning - John Ashdown-Hill
 Marcellus Mures alias Selis, of Utrecht and London, a goldsmith of the Yorkist kings Anne F. Sutton
 Diriment impediments, dispensations and divorce: Richard III and matrimony - Marie
Barnfield
There will be thirty reviews as well as the usual notes on the latest books and articles
published recently and the volume will be indexed.
Anne F. Sutton
Membership Matters
Thank you to all members who responded to the letters regarding payment of their subscriptions.
Unfortunately a number of members received letters although they had paid their subscriptions
by standing order. This was due to the bank failing to provide the necessary documentation to
enable us to do the transaction. We have taken the matter up with the bank but we have also
reviewed our processes so that next year we will cross reference everything against the bank
statements and so avoid troubling members unnecessarily. There was also a computer glitch
which affected new members who joined in September last year and again a new process has
been put in place to ensure that this is not replicated this year. To err is human and we did find
that we had made a very small number of errors ourselves, for which we have apologised to the
members affected. Nevertheless, despite these problems we hope that we are providing an
efficient and friendly service to members. Finally a big thank you to all members for their kind
comments, best wishes and thanks to the committee and for the self-imposed fines for late
payment in the form of donations.
Wendy and Brian Moorhen
Commemorating the men of Colchester who fought at Bosworth
On Saturday 25 August (the weekend following the Society’s Bosworth commemoration at
Sutton Cheney) the Mid Anglia Group plans to commemorate those men of Colchester and the
surrounding area who fought (and in some cases died) at the battle of Bosworth ─ the most
famous of them being John Howard, Duke of Norfolk. We plan a service at St John’s Abbey (the
first, we believe, since the Dissolution), and tea at John Howard’s house in Colchester. Please
join us if you can. Full details will be published in the summer Bulletin.
John Ashdown-Hill
5
Media Retrospective
will present alternate theories about the site of
the battle’.
[They mean ‘alternative’ – or will Michael
Jones and Peter Foss stand there and take it in
turns to put their case? Also see page 16 for
news at Bosworth. Ed.]
From Bill Featherstone and Richard van
Allen:
Bill Featherstone: The Week magazine has a
section ‘Best Books’, and a recent one was by
Martin Stephen (author, historian and headmaster of St Paul’s Boys’ School). One of his
choices was The Daughter of Time, and he
said: ‘The mother, father, nuclear and extended family of all historical crime thrillers, a
brilliant piece of historical research in its
own right (and probably truer than many versions of the life of Richard III by official historians).’ Not bad, eh!
From Dr Anne-Marie Liethen:
I am afraid that in the German magazine GeoEpoche no 18/2006, dedicated to the history
of the city of London, has again occurred
some Richard-bashing. [Anne-Marie translates the German for us:] On page 33: ‘But
Richard was a monster, a tyrant and the murderer of his brother – so his own troops betrayed him. The king was slain on the battlefield, his crown dragged from under his
corpse and it was placed on Henry Tudor’s
head.’ On page 46: ‘... the triumph of the
sinister Richard ...’ On page 173: ‘The last
sovereign of the house of York, Richard III,
had crowned himself without having a claim
to the title and likely murdered the sons of his
elder brother to prevent their accession to the
throne.’ Anne-Marie adds, ‘Besides that, they
have confused the ways of death of Edward II
with Richard II. So much for the historical
correctness of an otherwise interesting magazine. I already wrote a letter to their editor. If
anyone wants to join me, here is their e-mail
address: [email protected]
Richard van Allen also sent in the same extract, commenting, ‘this will probably bring
back memories for many members. You just
can’t get a better recommendation than this’.
From Richard van Allen:
Listed by the Sunday Times in its News Review under ‘The best big ideas of 2006’. History – ‘As the world grew more dangerous
and the babyboomer generation found themselves blinded by the spectacle of their own
mortality, heritage became an urgent matter.
Boomer thinkers began to realise that their
repudiation of the past in the 1960s meant
that their children couldn’t remember anything at all. They did not know what the
boomers knew but had tried to forget – that
health, wealth and civilisation hang by a
thread and that the 20th century has seen a
series of savage attempts to cut that thread.
Suddenly we want the young to know the true
cost of their peace and plenty. History is the
new black, eureka!’
From Geoffrey Wheeler:
BBC Radio 4: Quote, Unquote –
6 November 2006
Nigel Rees: Now for some exclamatory remarks: Where is this from: ‘So much for
Buckingham!’?
A: Is Buckingham a person? The Duke of
Buckingham? It sounds very unlikely to be
anybody like Pepys.
Nigel Rees: Any offers?
A: Shakespeare?
Nigel Rees: Yes but Shakespeare didn’t actually write this line. It was put into his Richard III by a man called Colley Cibber who
From Anne Painter:
Leisure Opportunities Magazine, no. 437, has
a paragraph headlined ‘£2m revamp for Bosworth’. It says that ‘the existing exhibition in
the visitor centre will be revitalised with new
displays on medieval life and warfare ... A
new battle room will feature graphics retelling the events of the War of the Roses. It
6
was an ‘improver’ of plays and in Richard III
Shakespeare has ‘Off with his head!’ and
Cibber added ‘So much for Buckingham!’
and Laurence Olivier included that phrase in
his film version of Richard III. Now about
three exclamation marks in this little lot: ‘A
Horse! A Horse! My kingdom for a horse!’…
Suzy?
Suzy: Well, it’s Shakespeare again, isn’t it?
Richard III? Yes, it is, of course!
Nigel Rees: It’s his twice repeated cry …
Suzy: That’s because he couldn’t stand up or
walk very well, wasn’t it? So, it’s a tragic
moment, with the hunchback …
Nigel Rees: I think so, yes, but the actual
Richard III’s last words were not ‘A horse!
etc’, they were ‘I will die King of England! I
will not budge a foot! Treason! Treason!’
ter, explores 1450-1499: ‘1483 Richard grabs
the throne’.
Professor Carpenter opens with the difficulties of accepting 1485 as the watershed in
British history that has been the tradition for
so many years but sadly fails to carry forward
any revisionist thinking with regard to King
Richard himself and we are presented with a
piece that will fail to engage Ricardians because it is one of omission with regard to
Richard’s ‘usurpation’. Professor Carpenter
believes that Richard, who before the death of
his brother King Edward had shown no
‘uncontrollable ambition’, was probably motivated by panic ‘because he feared the Woodvilles would take apart his vast estate … and
then, once he had attacked them, fearing a
Woodville revanche when Edward came of
age’. There is no mention that Richard himself might have felt his own position, as protector, was being usurped by the Woodvilles
and, more importantly, no mention of the precontract of Edward and Eleanor Butler (née
Talbot) which justified Richard’s accession.
Professor Carpenter’s recounting of the
October rebellion also gives cause for concern with Richard resorting to having to bribe
his supporters, in particular Buckingham,
where he failed to provide sufficient incentives. Surely not. The grants made to Buckingham, in May 1483, made Buckingham allpowerful in Wales. It was perhaps either
Buckingham’s desire to be on the winning
side in the rebellion and making a bad judgement on the success of the rebellion or the
possible effect of Edward of Middleham’s
investiture as Prince of Wales in July 1483 in
York that turned the duke into ‘the most untrue creature living’.
Finally the situation at Bosworth is oversimplified with the ‘late betrayal of Richard’s
supposed allies’ without any mention of the
fact that two of those allies, the Stanley brothers, had some interesting axes to grind vis-àvis their relationship to the invader, Henry
Tudor.
Nevertheless this an interesting article,
accompanied by well-illustrated sections on
‘1483 in Context’ and ‘Key Years’ as well as
a useful further reading list.
From Julia Redlich, the secretary of the
NSW Branch, who says, ‘Richard makes an
appearance in a murder mystery (no, nothing
to do with the Princes, or the Tower). In In
the Woods, by Tana French (published in
April in Australia by Hodder & Stoughton),
Detective O’Kelly reports to his team on an
interview with a possible suspect: “He was
having tea and watching telly with his wife all
Monday night until he went to bed at eleven.
Bloody documentaries they watched ... one
about meerkats and one about Richard III. He
told us every detail whether we wanted it or
not ...”’ Julia adds, ‘Members of the NSW
Branch wish they could have been with
O’Kelly – we can never have too many details about Richard!’
From Wendy Moorhen:
BBC History Magazine
A well-known publisher has been known to
say that he could sell a book about Richard
every year and it now appears that Richard III
also sells magazines. The January issue of
BBC History once again features an article
about the king under the banner of ‘Turning
Points’, a 20-part series looking at decisive
moments of the last 1,000 years in British
history. In part 10 Cambridge professor of
medieval English history, Christine Carpen7
Reputation Management
RICHARD VAN ALLEN
O
ne of the most important assets that any
organisation possesses is its reputation,
in other words its public image. Organisations, whether they be government, industry,
charities or societies, spend a tremendous
amount of their time and resources not only in
promoting their images publicly but, just as
importantly, managing them too.
How is reputation management undertaken? Most obviously via the media in all their
various forms. However, dealing with the
media can be a minefield and has to be carefully managed. Contrary to the perception of
many people, and aided, it has to be said, by
the media’s own hype, the media are not a
public information service and therefore it is
important to understand their aims and objectives.
Quite simply the media are a business and,
like all businesses, dedicated to making a
profit. In order to do this they often manipulate information or stories in order to heighten
the drama, which in turn raises viewing figures (which translates into advertising for
commercial television), or sell newspapers or
magazines. Remember the old press adage,
‘bad news is good news’. On the other hand,
one can’t paint a completely cynical picture
of the media, as they are very aware that most
organisations set out to take advantage of
them by manipulating stories for their own
benefit (known as ‘spin doctoring’), of which
government is the most obvious example.
The Society, like all of these organisations, needs to promote its public image in
order to help it achieve its aims and, also like
these organisations, the main avenue it must
use is the media. As already mentioned, dealing with the media is a skilled business which
has to be managed professionally. Therefore
(almost) all organisations have a press or public relations officer or department to handle
this. Failure to channel all media contacts
through a public/press relations office can
cause embarrassment at the very least, or at
worst, actual harm to an organisation’s hardearned public reputation.
It is therefore important that any media
contacts with the Society be managed professionally, and that is why the Society has an
appointed Public and Press Relations Officer.
When media contact is made it is important to
be able to deduce whether the enquiry is as
straightforward as it appears or whether there
is a hidden agenda. A good example of this
can often be seen in television news interviews where the interviewer, at the instigation
of the news editor, is interviewing someone
who is introduced as an independent expert
on a particular subject with the objective of
getting the ‘expert’ to agree with the predetermined view of the news editor. The
problem is that many of these so-termed
‘experts’ do not have any media experience
and are often left floundering. One of the
problems is that being questioned by a reporter or interviewed on television can be both a
flattering and seductive experience for the
inexperienced. The media are well aware of
this and know that they can often get interviewees to say much more than they should.
A prime example of seeing a mediaexperienced person being interviewed is to
see an interviewer trying to get an experienced politician to agree with his, the interviewer’s, point of view and getting nowhere.
For the Society, when responding to major
media queries, it is important that this be done
through the Public and Press Relations Officer and not by members on an ad hoc basis.
For example, often an article will appear in
the press relating to Richard and many members will have an urge to fire off a stinging
reply. Responses to such articles need to be
considered and not done in the heat of the
moment or there is a danger that the Society
will be viewed as either being eccentric or
very biased. This in turn can devalue the rep8
utation of the Society and possibly at a later
date when we want to issue, say, a press release, or make a particular point, our views
may well by ignored by editors. There is the
other point, too, that the Society needs to
have an agreed line on particular subjects, and
members in isolation may not necessarily be
fully aware of this.
Finally we would request all members, if
approached by the media, please advise the
Public and Press Relations Officer, so that
together we can judge whether the response
should come from the centre or could be handled locally at branch, group, or individual
level. So please do not fire off irate letters to
the press in the name of the Society without
first contacting the Public and Press Relations
Officer to discuss the matter. Firstly we need
to judge if a response is merited, and if so
should it be as representing the Society or as
from an individual. This does not of course
mean to say that the Society will handle every
media enquiry. Quite the contrary! If a local
response is required then this can be done at
that level. All we ask is that the Public and
Press Relations Officer be consulted so that
assistance and advice can be given. In our
approach to reputation management we are
not seeking to be overly prescriptive or dictatorial. Our purpose is to manage professionally both the reputation of the Society and,
more importantly, that of Richard III. Which
is, after all, our raison d’être.
New Members
UK 1 Oct – 31 Dec 2006
Patricia Alison, Hertfordshire
Francis Armstrong, Braintree, Essex
Audrey Blair, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire
Andrew Bosworth, Taunton, Somerset
Lily Catterick, York, North Yorkshire
Mary Cook, Bristol
Joann Daly, Romford, Essex
Janette Davidson, Holt, Norfolk
Ann Durn, Plymouth, Devon
Annie Garfield, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffs
Geoffrey Green, Leominster, Herefordshire
Lesley Haycock, Burnley, Lancashire
Patricia Hitchin, York, North Yorkshire
John Horgan, Halstead, Essex
Valerie Kerr, Hertfordshire
Robert Lincoln, Milton Ernest, Bedford
Martina Maguire, Paston, Norfolk
Victoria Mather, Bristol
Derick McCulloch, Willenhall, West Mids
Caroline Michel, Jersey, Channel Islands
Dorothy Middleton, Swaffham, Norfolk
Heather Park, Wigton, Cumbria
Kevin Pearce, Hounslow, Middlesex
Lynne Pummell, Market Deeping, Lincolnshire
Anne Riordan, Hinckley, Leicestershire
Jasmine Skelton, Hailsham, East Sussex
Clare Turner, Quarndon, Derbyshire
Eileen Tutill, York, North Yorkshire
Audrey Twigg, Sheffield, Yorkshire
Judith Winskill, Crewe, Cheshire
Overseas 1 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006
Susan Appleyard, Ontario, Canada
Wayne Archer, Queensland, Australia
Norma Bassett, Toronto, Canada
Jane Bayley, Christchurch, New Zealand
Deborah Chenery, Ab, Canada
Peter Duchesne, Ottawa, Canada
John Grylls, Ontario, Canada
Corey Keeble, Toronto, Canada
Yuki Kusano, Gifu, Japan
David Leckie, Winnipeg, Canada
Library Buyers, Toronto, Canada
Shayne McIntyre, Stokes Valley, New Zealand
Angela Stevens, Seelze, Germany
Leslie Tomlinson, Ontario, Canada
Jacqueline Turner, New South Wales, Australia
Melissa Vargas, Ontario, Canada
Johanna Visser, New South Wales, Australia
Continued on page 22
9
A Death Warrant for the Princes?
WENDY MOORHEN
O
n Thursday 30 November 2006, BBC2 aired another episode in their Castle in the Country
series featuring Mount Stuart on the Isle of Bute, seat of the Marquess of Bute. Presenter
John Craven interviewed the Marquess’s archivist Andrew McLean, who produced a letter allegedly written by King Richard III, entrusted to Sir James Tyrell for delivery to a ‘worthie governour’. In the document the ‘governour’ is told that the king is ‘transferring our confidence as hee
shall speak and doe signe’, in other words Tyrell will tell all to the ‘Governour’, who will act
accordingly.
The inference is, of course, that the governor in question has responsibility for the Tower of
London, and as Tyrell had allegedly confessed to the murder of the Princes, the matter to be discussed is their disposal. Significantly the letter is dated 29 June 1483, just three days after Richard was proclaimed king.
Mr McLean commented that ‘this may well be a crucial piece of evidence in solving the mystery of this most controversial episode in English history’. He continued ‘we don’t know if it
maybe means something produced afterwards to discredit Richard or not but it may well be the
original’. John Craven’s closing comment was that ‘with the help of this letter, who knows – it
might even change history as we know it’.
If genuine this would indeed be a document of great importance but is it genuine? Two days
before the programme was transmitted a journalist from The Times, having found us on the website, contacted the Society to seek our assistance in establishing whether it was authentic, and a
photograph of the letter was made available. This was circulated to several members of the Research Committee who examined it and came to the conclusion that it was a fake (see below for
their comments). The photograph was also sent to Christopher Whittick, senior archivist at the
East Sussex Record Office, whose immediate reaction was, ‘It has fake written through it like
Brighton through a stick of rock, in fact it’s a pathetic fake’. The findings of our research committee and Mr Whittick were duly passed on to The Times reporter, who said that this tallied with
independent enquiries that he had made, and in the circumstances he would recommend to the
editor that the story be dropped. It is good to know that the opinions of our research team do
stand for something, particularly with a major newspaper like The Times. However, as the programme’s presenter had suggested ‘the letter could change history’, the Society felt that a public
response had to be made. A press release was issued on 2 December, but the story was not taken
up by the other newspapers. Their attention was now focused on the rather more pressing discovery of the body of an Ipswich prostitute at Hintlesham in Suffolk rather than a five-hundred-yearold ‘murder’ mystery.
However, although we are satisfied that the document is a fake, there is left the intriguing
question of who wrote it, when and why? The Society contacted Mr McLean at Mount Stuart and
he has told us that the letter was found in ‘a cardboard box otherwise full of old junk – more specifically old elastic bands, unused envelopes and the adhesive papers used to stick stamps into
albums. All these dated from around the 1920s, a time when the 4th Marquess was building up a
significant collection of stamps’. The letter was contained in an envelope on which was written,
‘Sir James Tyrell was Richard’s Master of the Horse. Richard III proclaimed himself king June
26, 1483.’ The 4th Marquess of Bute was also a collector of manuscripts but there is no documentation to suggest that he bought the letter. It is perhaps significant that it was not stored with
other manuscripts.
10
There are several possibilities as to why the letter was written. Christopher Whittick has suggested that it may have been ‘intended to amuse rather than to deceive’. Mr McLean believes the
letter came into the possession of the Bute family in or around the 1920s but feels that it is older
‘and that the faker has deliberately made it to look as though it has been written in a hurry ...
Richard would have had little time for official titles, dates and the formality of other Royal letters
... with the blotted words, the use of Arabic numerals to suggest that Richard had no time to write
the Roman version’. Peter Hammond has suggested that a tradionalist may have had his or her
sensibilities upset by one of the newly-published, pro-Richard works such as Walpole’s Historic
Doubts or Halstead’s biography of Richard, or perhaps somebody, who knew of the Marquess’s
interest in manuscripts, forged the letter and offered it to him for sale. This is, of course, just
speculation but with scientific dating of the letter it may be possible to progress one of these theories. This is a possibility and Mr McLean has said he will keep us updated.
Transcript of the Letter
Crossbei House
June 29 1483
In ye trustie handes of a valorousse
knight James Tyrill
Worthie Governour
Especiallie deserving of our goode grace
in all speechlessnesse and reservatione and
so to be carryed in minde [blotted word possibly doing] no battell
to our Royall waies. Yis [This] commeth transferring
our confidence as hee shall speak and doe
signe. In no whit dishonouring thee goode
Governour but for chiefe dispatche.
Richard Rex
Summary of Conclusions
The date and address at the top of the letter are in a modern style, especially with the use of Arabic numbers. Although it was not unheard of to use Arabic numbers at this time, it was unusual in
England. The extensive number of published wills that have been examined as part of the Society’s wills projects confirms this view. Dating in fifteenth-century usage was complex. Dates
could be linked to a saint’s festival, numbers shown as Roman numerals and the year again in
Roman numerals or in regnal years (these years begin with a monarch’s succession or an anniversary of it). A less anachronistic style would have been ‘the xxix day of Juyn in the first year of
our reign’.
The layout of the letter is not medieval. The introductory sentence in particular is a poor imitation of the usual format. The language of the text is not medieval and some of the words used,
such as ‘speechlessness’ and ‘reservatione’, seem to have been chosen to be unnatural in their
context and so give a flavour of ‘antiquity’ – as if the forger thought that was how they spoke ‘in
the olden days’.
The handwriting is wrong for the fifteenth century, not only in the extensive capitalisation,
but generally in the form of almost every letter. A tentative dating of the document would be
eighteenth to nineteenth century when literary forgery was not unknown, although it could be as
late as the twentieth century.
11
The signature is unlike any known one of Richard’s. The form of the ‘R’ is not consistent
with fifteenth-century handwriting and it is more likely that he would have signed himself as
‘Ricardus Rex’ than as ‘Richard Rex’.
Another inconsistency that has been investigated is the title of ‘governour’ when the appellation in the fifteenth century would be ‘constable’. Dr Sally Dixon-Smith, the curator of the collections at the Tower of London, has commented that ‘since the nineteenth century, constables
have not lived full-time at the Tower, and their places have been taken by resident governors’.
This perhaps gives us the best indicator of when the letter was written so far.
Thanks must go to Lesley Boatwright, Moira Habberjam, Peter Hammond, Anne Sutton,
Richard Van Allen, Livia Visser-Fuchs and Christopher Whittick for their timely help and comments in this matter.
The Letter from Mount Stuart
Reproduced by kind permission of the Marquess of Bute
12
News and Reviews
killed and, having eliminated the ‘evil’ royal
councillors, he treated the king with respect,
swore loyalty to him and escorted him to the
nearby abbey and then to London.
Road Danger to Northampton
Battleground
A member, Mrs Folwell, has very kindly
alerted the Executive Committee to the proposed plans to put an access road right across
the site of the Battle of Northampton. If the
road goes ahead it would destroy not only the
setting of the historic twelfth-century abbey
building (dedicated to St Mary but now
known as Delapré Abbey) on that site, but
also the burial site of the soldiers who fell at
the battle. These plans were originally submitted back in 2005 but were overthrown due
to local protest, so campaigners were rather
surprised to see these plans re-emerging, and
aim to obtain a preservation order to keep the
site safe from all future adverse development.
Richard Van Allen will liaise with History
Matters and with The Battlefields Trust to
ensure that local campaigners receive as
much support as possible.
The battle of Northampton was the fourth
military action of the Wars of the Roses and
followed the disastrous Rout of Ludford
(October 1459) which saw the dispersal of the
leading Yorkists to Ireland and Calais and the
capture of the duchess of York with her
younger children including Richard. The Calais contingent returned to England in May
1461. Warwick was determined to force the
king to reform his government and to get rid
of his ‘evil’ councillors and it was to this end
he marched north to Northampton.
The battle was fought on 10 July 1460
between the royalist army of King Henry VI
supported by the duke of Buckingham, the
earl of Shrewsbury and Lord Grey of Ruthyn.
The Yorkist army was led by the earls of
Warwick and March (the future Edward IV)
and Lord Fauconberg. Warwick sent emissaries to present the Yorkist grievances to the
king but they did not get past Buckingham. In
exasperation Warwick launched his attack on
the hopelessly outnumbered royal army,
whose artillery was rendered useless by heavy
rain. The victorious earl ordered the common
soldiers to be spared but the nobles to be
Detail of the Eleanor Cross which stands
near the site of the Battle of Northampton.
Photo courtesy of Geoff Wheeler.
Flog It Visits Bosworth
The popular BBC2 daytime programme Flog
It recently visited the auction rooms at Market
Harborough to film for the current series. The
programme invites members of the public to
bring along items to a valuation day where
presenter Paul Martin and his team of experts
offer advice and follow the progress of items
that make it through to the auction. An ele13
ment of the programme is to show a short
film during the programme that features
something of local interest, and because of
Market Harborough’s proximity to Bosworth
the BBC contacted the Society’s PR officer
Richard Van Allen with a view to a contribution from the Society.
Right Royal Bastards: The Fruits of
Passion by Peter Beauclerk-Dewar
and Roger Powell. Published by
Burke’s Peerage & Gentry LLC,
2006. Paperback, £19.99
No, this is not a book about the early Tudor
kings (although they get a mention), but a
comprehensive survey of forty-four royal
bastards that have either been acknowledged
by their kingly fathers or who were without
doubt royal offspring. The book continues,
albeit with some overlaps, the 1984 book by
Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis The
Royal Bastards of Medieval England, which
concluded with the illegitimate children of the
House of York. This perhaps explains the title
of the opening section of the present book,
‘Tudor Bastards (1485-1603)’, which will
rattle Ricardian sensibilities, as only one falls
into this category – Henry Fitzroy. The remaining three are Arthur Plantagenet (son of
Edward IV), John of Gloucester and Katherine Plantagenet (children of Richard III).
It appears that of the majority of the remaining forty, split between sections on the
Stuart and Hanoverian by-blows, a total of
thirty-one are the progeny of just three kings,
Charles II (14), James II (6) and William IV
(11), leaving just three kings and two princes
to own up to having played away. This leads
to a substantial final section, ‘Royal Loose
Ends’, which is perhaps the most interesting
as it includes those suspected of being the
illegitimate off-spring of kings and princes of
Wales, and also, for the sake of completeness,
those who, although believed to have been
royal bastards, have been shown not to be so
by recent research; for example, Richard Rex,
whose alleged father was George III. The
authors note that since the accession of Queen
Victoria, no monarch or prince has acknowledged any bastards, so speculation on the
possible love-children of more recent royals,
such as Kings Edward VII and VIII, is rife.
Included in ‘loose ends’, and closer to our
period, are Richard III’s possible son, Richard
of Eastwell* as well as four potential daughters of Edward IV, the children of Mary Boleyn, another alleged bastard of Henry VIII,
Sir John Perrott, and the longest mini-
Flog It Presenter Paul Martin at Bosworth
On a cold and windy day a week before
Christmas, Research Officer Wendy Moorhen
met with the crew on Ambion Hill for an interview with Paul Martin, who wanted to
know such things as why Richard had acquired an evil reputation, was he deformed,
were the princes murdered, what kind of king
was he and what happened at Bosworth?
Wendy takes up the story. ‘The Society has
been consulted for several programmes about
Richard and it is usually an uphill struggle.
Flog It however was a delight. Director Chloe
Rawlings was knowledgeable and openminded on the subject and there was little I
could find fault with in the script for Paul and
the narration. The crew began the day in
Leicester, filming by the Society’s statue in
Leicester Castle Gardens, before moving on
to Bosworth, which was freezing. Adrenaline
however cuts in and then it was just time to
think about what to say, but with a friendly
and professional crew and presenter it wasn’t
difficult. The interview developed beyond the
script and Paul was interested to learn there
was more than one possible site for the battle.’
The programme was transmitted on Monday 12 February 2007.
14
biography in the whole book. This is devoted
to Sir Roland Velville, who until quite recently had been considered without question to be
the baseborn son of Henry VII. For this biography the authors draw heavily on Society
member W.R.B. Robinson’s excellent 1991
article in Welsh History Review (given incorrectly as Welsh Historical Review) on Velville’s career.
Right Royal Bastards works well as a reference book or as a continuous read. The biographies are usually extended to later descendants, including present day representatives, and the authors are occasionally sidetracked into interesting trivia. The early biographies reveal the dangers of being closely
related to the royal family and two, John of
Gloucester and the duke of Monmouth, paid
the ultimate price. For the most part, though,
the sons were elevated to the peerage and the
daughters married into the nobility of England, and they all took their place in the privileged life of the upper echelons of society. So
successful was their own procreating that
many members of the present royal family are
also descended from the ‘natural’ progeny of
their legitimate ancestors, including our own
Patron, the Duke of Gloucester, who writes
the foreword to the book.
The book concludes with three appendices
that provide a list of suspected mistresses of
kings of England and their heirs apparent
since 1485 and two articles by well-known
genealogist Cecil Humphery-Smith on Bastardy and the Arms of Royal Bastards. The
authors appear to be up-to-date with recent
research on the putative love-children and
where appropriate they have approached and
interviewed those who may be ‘in the know’.
There are, however, a couple of niggles. I was
a little concerned to read in the biography of
Arthur Plantagenet that Sir Francis Bryan was
one of the alleged lovers of Anne Boleyn;
surely that was Sir Francis Weston! Also I
found the bibliography a little disconcerting.
Rather than using the more conventional system of a listing by authors’ names, the works
consulted are listed alphabetically by title.
As a romp through the seamier side of
royalty, the book is fascinating, but Ricardians need not rush out to buy it to learn more
of the illegitimate children of Richard III and
Edward IV. Peter Hammond’s articles in
Crown and People and volume 13 of The
Ricardian do full justice to the meagre facts.
Wendy Moorhen
* see below for more about Richard of Eastwell
Mary at Bolton
Teesside University’s Centre of Regional and
Local History, in association with the Yorkshire Archaeological Society and the Marie
Stuart Society, is holding a day conference at
Bolton Castle in North Yorkshire on 2 June
2007, focussing on the time Mary Queen of
Scots resided in the castle at the end of 1568.
Papers will cover Mary’s flight to England,
her life at the castle, the social, religious and
political context in which she found herself in
northern Yorkshire, the consequences of her
stay, and the castle and its setting at the time.
Speakers include John Guy, author of the
Whitbread prize-winning biography of Queen
Mary, Krista Kesselring, Steve Moorhouse,
Peter Brears, Lord Bolton and Emma Watson.
For details of the programme and a booking form please send your name and address,
with s.a.e., to Mrs Emma Shaw, School of
Arts and Media, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, or email e.shaw@tees.
ac.uk
Tony Pollard
The Fotheringhay Oaks
Several years ago, a number of you were kind
enough to give money towards the cost of
replacing three trees in the churchyard at
Fotheringhay, and you may be wondering
what has happened since.
I have spoken with Juliet (Wilson) and she
tells me that the chestnut trees that blew down
were weakened by canker, and they have
been advised to leave the ground clear of new
trees, of whatever species, for a few years.
(Incidentally, I have since read that chestnut
canker has become very common in some
parts of the British Isles and is having a similar effect to that suffered by elms with Dutch
elm disease.)
15
The remaining chestnut tree in the churchyard is in poor health, but the tree surgeon
will not give an estimate as to how long it
may last. If this tree falls or breaks, it will
either take the wall of the churchyard with it
or it will fall across the site of the new planting. If it takes the wall, the cost of rebuilding
will be horrendous, especially if English Heritage have their way.
So, we are waiting for the ground to sterilise itself and for someone to give a positive
opinion on the remaining tree. After that, Juliet will get together with a local farmer who
has offered to help with digging the holes for
the new trees and with selecting the oak saplings. Thereafter, we must hope that the chestnut, if it falls, does the decent thing ... and, as
Juliet says, that it does it while she is away
from the village.
Phil Stone
tre.
The Society has invited Richard Knox to
provide us with an update on the project and
this is scheduled to appear in the autumn Bulletin. In the meantime those members who
would like to learn more of the alternative
sites should read The Field of Redemere: the
battle of Bosworth 1485 by Peter J. Foss
which explores the theory that the battle took
place at Dadlington and Mike Jones’ Bosworth 1485: psychology of a battle whose
theory moves the action to the west around
the Fenny Drayton, Witherley and Merevale
area. Both books are available from the Barton Library.
Wendy Moorhen
Towton Battlefield Society and the
Company of Palm Sunday 1461
There will be a guided battlefield anniversary
walk and authentic fifteenth-century living
history camp on Palm Sunday, 1 April 2007,
l0 am - 4 pm Towton Hall, near Tadcaster
As England entered the 1460s with the
country in the grip of the Wars of the Roses,
the North was to witness events that culminated at Towton on Palm Sunday 1461 with
the biggest, longest and bloodiest battle ever
fought on English soil. Up to 90,000 soldiers
of the rival houses of Lancaster and York
engaged in close-quarter combat for ten long
hours on what, for 28,000 of them, would
mark their last day on earth.
Towton Battlefield Society, affiliated reenactment group Company of Palm Sunday1461 and guest re-enactors invite you to
remember this day, with their guided memorial walk over one of England’s most unspoilt battlefields, and enjoy the living history commemoration in the grounds of Towton
Hall.
Guided walks (approximately 4 miles,
stout footwear recommended) will start from
Towton Hall Barn at l0 am. Walks will be
followed by a short service behind the Hall,
close to where the famous skeletons featured
in the TV programme Blood Red Roses were
found. Medieval displays, traders, information and refreshment stalls will be available throughout the day in the Barn, along
Update on the Archaeology Project
at Bosworth
In the Spring 2005 issue of the Bulletin we
reported on the success of Leicestershire
County Council’s Lottery Fund bid for £1.3
million. The money was to be spent in developing the Visitors’ Centre and in carrying out
an archaeological study of the battlefield area.
In October last year, the Leicester Mercury
ran a story entitled ‘Bosworth: Doubt over
where Richard III had last stand – is this really the site of the 1485 battle?’ It appears the
archaeologists have found very little, other
than some horse harness, in the traditional
battlefield site and chief archaeologist, Richard Knox, has commented that ‘personally, I
think it is unlikely’ the battle took place on or
around Ambion Hill. As a consequence the
latest thinking is that the battle was fought on
the flat ground within the greater battle area
which includes Stoke Golding, Dadlington,
Sutton Cheney, Fenny Drayton, Witherley,
Upton, Merevale and Mancetter.
Guides at the Battlefield Centre are now
apparently advising tourists it is unknown
where the battle really took place and Leicestershire Council are certainly ‘taking it on the
chin’ and appear determined to find the real
location despite their investment at the Cen16
with an authentic fifteenth-century encampment to the rear of Towton Hall. Outdoor
entertainments include a falconry show, archery and fire power displays, and a demonstration of sword fighting by the European
Historical Combat Guild. The event will conclude with a pole arm drill and mêlée of mass
re-enactors.
Provisional programme: guided walks;
falconry displays and living history camp;
memorial service with prayers and wreath
laying in the Hall grounds; arming the knight;
sword combat; bill-drill; mêlée in the main
arena.
Admission £1 per adult; children under l2
free (admission includes car parking, programme, guided walk, and access to all shows
and displays within the grounds)
For further information contact: Mark
Taylor 01302-882488 or Graham Darbyshire
01977-683825. Also see our websites www.
towton.org.uk and www.palmsunday1461.co.
uk
Helen Cox
A New Hypothesis
Historian and Society member David Baldwin
has written a new book entitled The Lost
Prince: The Survival of Richard of York.
Baldwin argues that Richard Plantagenet of
Eastwell, sometimes said to have been an
illegitimate son of Richard III, who died in
1550, was Richard, Duke of York, the younger of the missing ‘Princes in the Tower’.
The fate of the Princes in the Tower is the
most intriguing and enduring of all historical
mysteries and it is often claimed that they
were killed by their uncle, King Richard,
probably in the autumn of 1483; but David
argues that such an awful betrayal of the confidence the boys’ father, Edward IV, had
placed in him is not supported by the available evidence. David believes that Edward V,
the elder prince, died from natural causes (he
was receiving regular visits from his doctor),
but suggests that Richard, his younger brother, was eventually reunited with his mother,
Queen Elizabeth Woodville, and allowed to
live with her under the watchful eye of two
trusted courtiers, John Nesfield and James
Tyrell. He was subsequently moved to Lutterworth in Leicestershire where the rector, John
Varnam, owed his appointment to Elizabeth’s
Grey family, and was taken to meet his uncle,
King Richard, the night before the battle of
Bosworth. The now widowed and childless
monarch was anxious to win over more of his
late brother’s former adherents, and may have
thought that naming his nephew his heir after
he had destroyed Henry Tudor would seal his
success.
But King Richard was slain at Bosworth
and the Prince found himself a fugitive. His
uncle had instructed Francis, Viscount Lovel,
to take him to St John’s Abbey at Colchester
– a popular refuge for Yorkist dissidents – in
the event of a disaster, and after discussions
with the new government it was decided to
apprentice him to the Abbey’s master bricklayer. A prince would, arguably, have stuck
out like a sore thumb on a building site; but
Henry VII would only agree to spare his life
if he was given an entirely new identity, and
Richard soon realised – or was made to realise – that he must adapt to his new role. The
evidence suggests that the King kept a watch-
‘In Deadly Hate – Richard III and
The Wars of the Roses’ at TNA
The National Archives put on lunchtime talks
on medieval and early modern research topics. They take place from 1 pm to 2 pm in the
Conference Suite at the National Archives,
Kew, and are free. No booking is required,
but places are limited, so it’s first come, first
served. On Tuesday 20 March Sean Cunningham and James Ross will present ‘In Deadly
Hate? – Richard III and the Wars of the Roses’. The blurb in the MEMRIS (Medieval and
Early Modern Record Information Service)
newsletter says ‘The conflict for the crown in
the fifteenth century has created many of
English history’s most vivid characters; and
thanks to Shakespeare we have one of our
greatest villains in the shape of Richard III.
This talk looks at the key sources for this period of civil war, and investigates whether
Richard III really did resemble Shakespeare’s
destructive monster.’
Lesley Boatwright
Richard of Eastwell:
17
ful eye on Colchester, and alarm bells would
have rung all over Westminster when, in
1490, it was learned that the now 17-year-old
former prince had formed a relationship with
a young widow named Eleanor Kitchen. Eleanor’s ‘offence’ could not be stated openly, of
course, and her ‘punishment’ was to be
placed in the custody of her kinsfolk for the
rest of her life.
Richard took the precaution of obtaining a
pardon shortly after Henry VIII succeeded his
father, but the threat he posed to the government diminished as the years passed. He was
allowed to work at Creake Abbey and probably at other sites in East Anglia when the abbot had nothing for him to do at Colchester,
and no more would have been heard of him
had it not been for the disaster which overtook the monasteries in the late 1530s. King
Henry’s suppression of the religious houses
forced Richard and others like him to earn
their keep where they could in the wider
world, and his search for work brought him to
Eastwell, in Kent, where Sir Thomas Moyle
was building a fine new mansion, in 1542 or
1543. Richard had always enjoyed reading –
it was perhaps the only part of his former life
he had never abandoned – and Sir Thomas
wanted to know how a humble bricklayer (as
he supposed) had acquired an education. The
now elderly former prince told him his story –
but with the difference that he was an illegitimate son of Richard III rather than a true son
of Edward IV. Perhaps some deeply ingrained
instinct for self-preservation asserted itself,
even then.
Sir Thomas allowed Richard to live in his
own small dwelling on the estate until he died
on 22 December 1550 at the then great age of
77. Most commentators assume that no-one
knew what had become of the Princes, but
David argues that many people – kings, royal
confidants, the boy’s sisters and former
household officers – did know but chose to
say nothing about it. ‘Dead princes were a
potential embarrassment, but a live prince . . .
would have been a real danger and a closely
guarded secret’. Richard survived when others with a Yorkist claim to the throne perished because he was out of sight and perhaps, eventually, out of mind also. Eastwell,
where he died, is only 12 miles from Canterbury Cathedral where his portrait still adorns
the ‘royal’ window of the Martyrdom Chapel.
Did an elderly bricklayer, David wonders,
ever pause to look into the face of his own
image – an image from another life – on the
occasions when he visited the greater church?
The book is due to be published by Suttons in March. However, this is only a provisional date and due to a change in ownership
of the publishing house, it may be delayed
slightly.
BBC Radio 4’s Today producers have
been in touch with the Society about David’s
book and have asked for a representative to
comment on his hypothesis. However, this is
currently on hold until the book is published.
Another book about Richard of Eastwell
has been privately published by Mark Griffin.
This is a novel but Mark also believes that
Richard of Eastwell was the duke of York.
ROSANDA BOOKS
Specialists in out-of-print Ricardian Fact and Fiction
If you would like to receive our catalogues please write to
11 Whiteoaks Road, Oadby, Leicester LE2 5YL
e-mail [email protected]
18
Changes in the Perception of King
Richard: Old News but still Good
News!
WENDY MOORHEN
D
ue to the generous gift of a series of dolls from a fellow Ricardian recently, their characters
being drawn from the Wars of the Roses period, my childhood and young adult interest in
the dolls made by Peggy Nisbet was revived. Mrs Nisbet began her doll-making career in 1953,
inspired by the coronation of the present queen, when she produced her first doll. She formed a
company and for over thirty years she produced an extraordinary range of dolls, many of the
characters being of historical significance. What is perhaps remarkable is the size of these dolls,
just 7½ inches tall which requires great skill by the makers in reproducing the costumes in minature.
My own collection began in the late 1950s with gifts from my parents, and took off in a big
way around 1970, a period which was probably the zenith of Peggy Nisbet’s doll-making art. The
company was sold in 1992 and at that time I thought I had a closed collection. Recently, this has
been proved to be far from the case with the gift of the two Wars of the Roses limited edition
series, produced between 1968 and 1969, and the discovery of e-Bay. ‘If it isn’t offered on eBay, it doesn’t exist!’
When I carefully examined the identification tags on my new acquisitions, I found that two of
the dolls in the series, those of King Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York,
recorded that they died in 1483 – not encouraging to a Ricardian! The certificate of authenticity
however gave a qualified description of the Princes ‘Historical fiction says that the Princes Edward and Richard were murdered in August 1483 whilst imprisoned in the Tower of London. It is
widely thought that the murders were instigated by their uncle, Richard III who had much to gain
from their deaths’. Mrs Nisbet was clearly sitting on the fence. My research insticts were now
aroused and my renewed interest led me to review the literature I had accumulated over the years
of my ‘hobby’ (like Morse, I loathe that word) and I found an interesting statement made by Mrs
Nisbet, when she produced a new portrait doll of King Richard. In her October 1977 newsletter
to members of her Collectors’ Club, she wrote:
Also included will be King Richard III, a very favourite character of mine because I subscribe to the theory, now widely acknowledged by modern historians,
that poor Richard was not a villain who murdered his two nephews, the little
Princes in the Tower, but rather a scholarly, courageous King: the most ill-used
and glorious monarch of the period. What a change from the wicked monster
about whom I learned at school!
Over the intervening years Mrs Nisbet had obviously ‘come out of the closet’ about the mystery of the princes’ disappearance and their ‘supposed death’ in 1483 – could this be due to some
activities or statements by the Society that she had learned about? She repeated her enthusiasm
for King Richard in her Reference Book for Collectors published in 1977 and this prompted a
response from a USA Branch member who wrote:
19
It was a thrill to read the caption for King Richard III in the book. As a member
of the Richard III Society, I am used to defending his name but you cannot believe my pleasure in reading your description of him. We are not used to hearing
him referred to as a glorious monarch and the admittance that there was Tudor
propaganda. This is unusual and we love it!
Mrs Nisbet’s enthusiasm for Richard continued, and in 1985 her company’s penultimate limited edition series was devoted to ‘The Princes in the Tower’, a set of three dolls, Richard III and
the Princes. The certificate reads:
King Richard III reigned from 1483 to 1485. Controversy and mystery has continued throughout history as to whether he was the cruel, wicked character responsible for the murder of the two little Princes in the Tower, aged 12 and 9 years. The
popular belief today is that Richard III was a glorious monarch much vilified by
ugly propaganda that had no foundation of truth.
One of these special sets found its way into a raffle prize at a Society AGM.
There is an interesting expression, ‘what goes around comes around’ and this is very much
the case with this rather personal story. The American branch member who was so pleased to
learn about Mrs Nisbet’s view of King Richard was Miss Elizabeth Argall of Illinois. She is now
Mrs Beth Stone, wife of our Chairman, and the kind Ricardian who gave me the Wars of the Roses dolls in the first place. Thank you, Beth.
Warwick the Kingmaker, King Richard III, Queen Elizabeth Woodville and the Princes
20
Celebrating 50 Years:
YORK MINSTER AND A SERVICE
OF THANKSGIVING
W
hen we began preparing the Members’ weekend in York, I wrote to the
Very Reverend Dr Keith Jones, Dean of
York, to ask if it would be possible to have a
service of thanksgiving in the Minster on 1
October. In his reply, he explained that, as it
would be the first Sunday of the month, there
really was no way to fit an extra service into
an already very full programme. However, if
it would suit us, he would ensure that the Society was mentioned in the prayers during the
last service of the morning.
So it was that, at 11.30 am, about thirty
members of the Society were gathered, together with a large number of the general
public, in the choir of York Minster for the
service. And so it was, too, that, at the end of
that service, there were about thirty disappointed members who had heard no mention
of the Society.
Quickly finding the vestry, I approached
the Dean, and when I mentioned the Society,
he said, ‘Oh dear, is it today? Nobody reminded me’. Clearly, Dr Jones does not maintain his own diary. He then proceeded to be
very apologetic and promised a mention during evensong, at which he would also be
preaching.
So it was that, at 4 pm, a smaller number
of members gathered yet again in the choir,
and this time we were rewarded with a welcome in the opening remarks, while King
Richard himself was named later in the prayers. I say rewarded, but, really, it was no
hardship to attend the two services, the choirs
of York Minster at the moment being
amongst the finest in the land, and they excelled themselves during evensong. (Their
performance of the Mozart Ave verum towards the end of one of the morning services
was something to tug on the heartstrings, too.)
Before we left the Minster, I again sought
out the Dean and this time, thanked him for
his kindness. As I did so, I wondered, to myself, whether there had been warm words in
the vestry earlier in the day. We will never
know. Some things are best left to God.
Phil Stone
Adopt a Stone
aim being to raise money for the repair of the
east end of the church, the stones of which are
crumbling. Instead of just asking for money,
the appeal is asking people or organisations to
sponsor, or adopt, a stone, the money to be
given in monthly instalments over the next
No, this is not a request from the chairman for
someone who might be willing to give him a
home and take him into their family, though
he is asking for your help. About a year ago,
the present Duke of York, HRH Prince Andrew, launched an appeal at York Minster, the
21
five or ten years. The total for each stone is
£600.
In the past, the Society has given gifts to
the Minster, and the RCRF has given money,
most notably when funds were being raised to
replace the great west window, sometimes
known as the ‘Heart of Yorkshire’. It will
come as no surprise to members, therefore, to
learn that we would like to give something
towards the present appeal.
Although we can sponsor one stone with
funds already available, we would like to be
able to sponsor two or three more in the name
of the Society. However, we feel that it will
not be very practical to ask members to send
their donations to us in monthly instalments –
the paperwork and costs could be prohibitive.
Therefore, we are asking those of you who
would like to donate towards this cause in the
Society’s name to send us their cheques,
made out to the ‘Richard III Society’ and endorsed ‘RCRF – York Minster’. A standing
order to pay the Minster monthly will then be
set up. This way, we can keep administration
costs to a minimum, while at the same time,
interest will be earned on your contributions.
(For those who aren’t sure, money in the
RCRF is kept in the Society account, where it
accrues interest, while being ‘ring-fenced’, to
be used only as directed by the fund’s trustees.)
Please be as generous as you can. Whatever you send will be gratefully received and
on behalf of the Minster and the RCRF, we
thank you in advance for your help.
Elizabeth Nokes and Phil Stone,
RCRF trustees
New Members continued from page 9
US Branch 1 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006
Victoria Boehm, Washington, DC
Neil Baldock, Washington State
Donna Barker, Idaho
Tom Duffy, Texas
Al Franco, New York
Diane Long Jester, Florida
Kae and Dominic Oliver, California
Paul O’Neill, New York
Janice Pike, Arizona
Lynda Tanner, Arizona
Forget-Me-Not Books
Out of print and second hand history books, fact and fiction.
For my new Spring catalogue please contact:
Judith Ridley
11 Tamarisk Rise, Wokingham
Berkshire. RG40 1WG
Email: [email protected]
22
Ricardian Heroes: The Australian
Connection
JOHN SAUNDERS
I
n April the Australian and New Zealand
branches will be holding their bi-annual
convention in Auckland. It seems appropriate
therefore that the Ricardian Heroes series
should in this issue have an Australasian focus. So we will be looking at the contributions of the writer Philip Lindsay and the
founder of the original Australian Branch, Pat
Bailey.
Many members down-under will be familiar with the classic Australian children’s story
The Magic Pudding, which was illustrated
and written by Norman Lindsay, one of the
Australia’s most famous artists. This story
has a similar place in Australian children’s
literature as perhaps Alice in Wonderland has
in ours. One of the early members of the Fellowship of the White Boar was Norman’s son
Philip.
The Lindsays were a family of prolific
writers and artists, who had their origins in
Londonderry, from where Norman’s father
emigrated to Australia in 1864. Norman was
one of ten children, four of whom achieved
prominence in the arts. He married his first
wife Kathleen Parkinson in 1900. Their third
son, Philip, was born in Sydney in 1906.
Three years later, with his marriage at breaking point, Norman Lindsay left for London.
His wife and their children moved to Brisbane, where Philip received his early education at the Church of England Grammar
School. Norman eventually returned to Australia and established a sort of artists’ colony
at his home Springwood in the Blue Mountains, where he lived for over fifty years until
his death in 1969 at the age of ninety. The
bohemian life of Springwood was immortalised in the 1994 film Sirens, which starred
Hugh Grant.
Early in his life Philip developed a deep
interest in literature and history, much encouraged by his father, who lent him many
books. Kathleen Lindsay and her children
returned to Sydney in 1920, living at Darlinghurst and Bondi. Philip attended the Sydney
Art School for a short while, but soon decided
that he would rather be a writer than an artist.
He had some modest literary success in Sydney, but it was to England that he looked to
make his reputation. He duly arrived in the
country in 1929 with high hopes of becoming
a published author. A contemporary at the
time described him as ‘fair-haired, jolly, eager and cordial, with typical Lindsay merry
blue eyes and ready barking with laughter,
careless with money, and a mighty almost
dissolute Bohemian.’
In 1930 Philip experienced his first English success when his monograph Morgan of
Jamaica was published, followed in 1932 by
a novel Panama is Burning. His biography of
Richard III came out in 1933, being preceded
by many months of research in the British
Library and Hampstead Reference Library. It
was during this period that he came into contact with the Fellowship and became a friend
of Saxon Barton. In his autobiography entitled I’d Live the Same Life Over, Lindsay
records a meeting with two publishing colleagues ‘On this first day together we discussed many ideas and the one that seemed
most strongly to appeal to them was a biography of Richard III. Continually angered by
the vile caricature which, for centuries, the
Tudors have foisted as a portrait of the last
and noblest of England’s kings, I was only
too eager to fling down my glove in the arena
of embattled historians … But the Richard
squabble would take a volume of itself to be
23
White Boar and was present, with Saxon Barton and Aymer Vallance, at the Antiquaries
meeting on 30 November 1933 for the unveiling of their report. The following year, on 21
April, he was amongst the guests at Middleham for the unveiling by Marjorie Bowen of
the Fellowship’s Memorial Window in St
Alkelda’s Church. In 1934 he travelled to
York to hear Saxon Barton lecture to the
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, and dedicated his 1936 novel The Duke is Served, set
in 1470/71, to Barton.
Philip Lindsay lived for many years in a
village near to the Sussex Cinque port town
of Rye, where he was very much admired by
the locals, earning a reputation as a
‘Johnsonian’ figure, particularly in his often
frequented local pub, The Rose and Crown.
He died in Hastings on 4 January 1958, following a serious respiratory illness. Shortly
after learning of his son’s death Norman
Lindsay wrote ‘Phil had fulfilled his life well.
He did a prodigious amount of work, had
cultivated his faculty as a writer, stored his
mind with the best creations in all the arts …
he had the art of easy friendship and inspired
genuine affection wherever he went.’ For a
Ricardian epitaph we need look no further
than his novel The Duke is Served, where he
wrote ‘This is a period I love more intensely
than any other, and I only hope that in time I
shall lead my readers – if they remain staunch
enough – to feel an equal love.’
Philip Lindsay was an Australian Ricardian who contributed most whilst living in England. An English Ricardian, Pat Bailey, was
to make her most significant contribution
when living in Australia.
Pat Bailey had joined the re-founded Fellowship in 1958, shortly before it became
officially the Richard III Society. As with
many members at that time, her interest had
been stimulated by reading The Daughter of
Time. She worked at that time for the Historic
Monuments Record for England, and had a
genuine passion for the past.
In 1959 she left for Australia with her
husband, the actor Robin Bailey, who was
touring with a production of My Fair Lady,
playing the lead role of Professor Higgins. Pat
took her Ricardian enthusiasm with her and
Philip Lindsay at his home in Sussex
Photograph courtesy of Cressida Lindsay
explained, and I shall not speak further of it
here. Suffice to say that I hurried back to
Hampstead with a non-fiction contract in my
pocket and a hearty cheque with which to
hold at bay butchers, bakers, grocers, milkmen…’ His passion for the past soon led
him to write many more historical novels, a
number set in Yorkist England. A reviewer
of one of these noted that Lindsay wrote with
‘exuberance and violent colour’. He also
scripted films, including Sir Alexander Korda’s The Private Life of Henry VIII, for which
he was also artistic director.
A further non-fiction Ricardian book
came out in 1934 On Some Bones in Westminster Abbey, which was a direct riposte to
the published report of the Society of Antiquaries investigation into the Abbey’s alleged
bones of the two princes in the Tower, which
had been made public the previous year. By
now Lindsay had joined the Fellowship of the
24
lost no opportunity to promote the cause of
Richard III and the Society whilst travelling
around Australia. She kept up a lengthy correspondence with our then secretary Isolde
Wigram, and was able to report to her later in
1959, ‘I have been very busy talking about
Richard since I came to Australia … and the
interest here has been very encouraging.’ This
interest culminated in the formation of the
Australian Branch at a meeting in Melbourne
on 2 October that year. From a very small
beginning membership grew steadily throughout the following decades and it was this Melbourne-based branch that was to remain the
focal point for Australian Ricardians, held
together for many years by its long-serving
secretary Stuart Soul. The quincentenary
events of the 1980s which proved a stimulus
to membership levels prompted the other
Australian states to form their own branches,
and together with the New Zealand Ricardians to form a solid and enthusiastic Ricardian
presence in Australasia, which the forthcoming convention in Auckland will celebrate.
Pat Bailey made further visits to Australia
during the 1960s and remained in close contact with the branch that she had helped to
found. On her return to live in England she
continued to be an active and enthusiastic
member of the Society, regularly attending
events and participating in trips. Towards the
end of her life ill health restricted her mobility, although she continued to regularly attend
the Annual General Meeting in London. Her
last service to the Society came in 1991 when
she organised and staged-managed an evening
of readings from Horace Walpole at his old
home, Strawberry Hill, with her husband
Robin amongst the readers. The event was a
great success and raised a lot of money for the
Fotheringhay Cope appeal.
In recognition of her contribution to the
Society, and especially the Australian Branch,
Pat Bailey was made a Vice-President. She
died on 2 October 1993, the day of the Society’s AGM for that year and of course the
birthday of King Richard III.
Rosemary Hawley Jarman, Pat Bailey, Mrs Smith (Rosemary’s Mother)
Photograph courtesy of Geoff Wheeler
25
The Man Himself
THE HERO AND THE VILLAIN?
HENRY V AND RICHARD III
(Part 2)
KEITH DOCKRAY
I
n the last Bulletin, I pointed out that a little
probing beneath the surface of traditional
portrayals of Henry V and Richard III soon
reveals unexpected similarities.
Neither was born the son of a king; both
enjoyed conventional aristocratic upbringings; and, while Henry V spent many of his
formative years in Wales, Richard III’s experience of northern England and its society in
the later 1460s and 1470s was probably even
more significant. Political turmoil and intermittent warfare provided an important backdrop to their early lives as well. Henry V’s
father deposed Richard II and seized the
throne for himself in 1399; Richard of York
developed ever stronger royal aspirations in
the 1450s; and, in 1461, these were turned
into reality when his eldest son toppled Henry
VI and took the crown as Edward IV.
The families of both Lancaster and York,
moreover, endured much internal strife during
the fifteenth century. Henry V’s relations with
his father, for instance, seem to have been uneasy at best, downright hostile at worst; in
1419 he had his stepmother Joan of Navarre
arrested (almost certainly on false charges),
only ordering her release as his own death approached in 1422; and, although he seems to
have bonded well enough with his brothers
John, Duke of Bedford, and Humphrey, Duke
of Gloucester, his relationship with Thomas,
Duke of Clarence, is altogether more problematic. Richard III was just a child at the
time of his father’s death in 1460 but, in
1476, he played a major role in the reburial of
Richard of York’s body at Fotheringhay; his
relationship with his mother seems to have
been irreparably damaged when he seized the
throne and disinherited his nephews in 1483;
and, as for his brother George, Duke of Clarence, he probably never forgave him for his
role in the readeption of Henry VI in 1470
and almost certainly concurred in his trial and
execution in 1478. Yet his loyalty to Edward
IV never seriously wavered during the king’s
lifetime, even when he disapproved of his
brother’s behaviour.
On a more personal level, Henry V may
well have led a largely, perhaps entirely,
chaste bachelor life for many years and, as far
as we know, he had no illegitimate offspring;
his relatively late marriage to Catherine of
Valois in 1420 was very much a political
match and, even if there was real affection
between the two early on, it rapidly cooled;
and the king never seems to have shown
much paternal interest in his infant son. Richard III, while only too willing to castigate the
morals of his opponents if it served to advance his political objectives, sired at least
one bastard; his marriage of convenience to
Anne Neville turned out well enough; and,
when his only legitimate son died in 1484, he
appears to have been genuinely distressed.
Tradition has it that, once he inherited his
father’s crown, Henry V ostentatiously renounced his hitherto wild and irresponsible
lifestyle and, over the new few years, proved
himself a veritable medieval English heroking. Richard III, by contrast, has not infrequently been portrayed as the consistently
loyal supporter and servant of Edward IV
who, in 1483, nevertheless became a villainous usurper of his brother’s throne, callously
murdered his own nephews and soon established a royal tyranny in England. This is the
26
stuff of caricature, not history. Maybe Prince
Henry of Monmouth did, occasionally, indulge in boisterous and unruly behaviour
when released from the rigours of campaigning. Far more notable, however, is his role in
the reconquest of Wales following Owen
Glyndwr’s rebellion when he both established
his military reputation and built up a strong
and durable affinity. Before 1483 Richard of
Gloucester certainly created a powerful hegemony in northern England, brought a degree of stability to the region not seen for
years and surrounded himself with an even
more impressive array of lords and gentry.
Yet this surely reflected personal ambition
and self-interest no less than devotion to the
well-being of the Yorkist monarchy. In the
political sphere during his father’s illness in
1410 and 1411 Henry of Monmouth proved
himself an energetic and responsible ruler,
demonstrating real commitment to the restoration of good governance. As king he dealt
ruthlessly with any perceived threat to the
Lancastrian dynasty (such as the Southampton plot in 1415), while at the same time consistently striving to create and maintain political unity at home; he made real progress in
restoring financial solvency and curtailing the
extent of lawlessness; and, even when campaigning in France, Henry maintained a close
scrutiny over all aspects of government in
England. Yet there were clear limits to his
achievements on the home front since, while
demonstrating that the machinery of the medieval English state could be made to work
well enough, he had nothing new to offer and,
in his last years, signs of impending crisis
were becoming increasingly evident. As lord
of the north in the 1470s and early 1480s
Richard of Gloucester provided sound government and, as king, established the Council
of the North in 1484, built on his brother’s
efforts to improve royal financial administration, sought to promote impartial justice and
showed genuine concern for the well-being of
ordinary folk. When confronted by rebellion
in southern England in the autumn of 1483,
moreover, he responded as vigorously and
effectively to internal sedition as had Henry
V. Unfortunately, since he reigned for so
short a time, it is impossible to judge just how
successful a ruler he might have been in the
longer term.
Henry V’s enduring reputation rests principally on his spectacular victory at Agincourt
in 1415, the conquest of Normandy and the
establishment of a dual monarchy in France
and England. As a military commander he
was exceptionally gifted; he was meticulous
in planning, inspiring in the field and a master
of the art of siege craft; and he obviously enjoyed campaigning, felt most at ease in the
company of comrades-in-arms and revelled in
his renown as a chivalric warrior king. Yet,
since he had both the strengths and failings of
a medieval warlord, his military record is far
from unblemished. The great victory at Agincourt owed more to French folly than Henry’s
generalship, his slaughtering of prisoners during the action was criticised even at the time,
and the battle brought no territorial gains. His
treatment of the inhabitants of Harfleur in
1415, Caen in 1417 and Rouen in 1418 reflected an exceptionally severe interpretation
of contemporary laws of war. And the king’s
military reputation might well have become
tarnished had he not died prematurely. Like
Henry V, Richard III saw military action as a
teenager (Henry fought at Shrewsbury, and
was wounded in the action, at the age of sixteen in 1403, while Richard was not much
older at Barnet and Tewkesbury in 1471); he
proved himself a capable military commander
(for instance, during the 1482 Scottish campaign); he was personally courageous (as his
behaviour at Bosworth, the only battle where
he ever commanded in person, shows); and,
no doubt, his reputed dissatisfaction at the
outcome of Edward IV’s 1475 expedition to
France would have been fully shared by his
Lancastrian forebear. Maybe he shared Henry
V’s chivalric aspirations as well: hence this
may be why, as constable of England in the
1470s, he revelled in military ceremonial and
took such pride in his own family’s martial
reputation.
Henry V was exceptionally well educated
for a medieval English king, able to read and
write English (his first language), French and
Latin, and his reputation as a cultured, even
learned, layman is not without justification: in
particular, he had a genuine enthusiasm for
27
theology and literature; his chapel became a
focus for innovation in sacred music; and he
played a pivotal role in promoting the English
language. Richard III, too, was literate in both
English and French, and probably Latin as
well, and had a considerable interest in liturgy
and religious music. Henry V was a deeply
pious man who became actively involved in
all manner of ecclesiastical affairs, presenting
himself as a stalwart defender of Christian
orthodoxy and protector of the established
church (especially against the protoProtestant Lollards), promoting new liturgies,
encouraging religious reform and founding
notably austere religious houses. Again, obvious comparisons can be made with Richard
III’s strong streak of orthodox piety, encouragement of learned clergy and promotion of
regular worship (for instance, in his chapel at
Middleham in the 1470s, where he also
founded a religious college). Yet, arguably,
there was more than a touch of the puritan
about Richard and, as for Henry, so intense
was his religiosity and so extreme his devotion that he cannot easily escape the charge of
out-and-out bigotry.
Henry V and Richard III, it is clear, were
energetic and hard-working; they enjoyed the
confidence, even inspired the devotion, of
those closest to them; and their record in promoting justice and providing sound government is well documented. Yet both could also
be autocratic, inflexible and blatantly opportunistic, even vindictive, in pursuit of their
personal and political objectives, as well as
ruthless in the removal of those standing in
their way. In short, they were medieval kings,
root and branch, warts and all.
Incest and Richard III, Bigamy
and Edward IV
H. A. KELLY
I
have made various points about Richard
III in my writings over the years, as a longtime member of the Richard III Society, but I
find that I periodically have to revive them
for the benefit of new generations of Ricardians.
I would like to comment on Michael
Hicks’s allegations of possible incest in connection with Richard III,1 and on Marie Barnfield’s response in her two-part article in the
Ricardian Bulletin,2 as well as on the contribution of Wendy Moorhen in the Autumn
2006 issue.3 Marie Barnfield is absolutely
right that there was no prohibition against
double marriages, two brothers marrying
two sisters (namely, in our case, Clarence
and Gloucester marrying the two Neville sisters). The notion that there was such an im-
pediment is a common mistake, one committed by Georges Duby in his Medieval Marriage (1978) and later writings.4 The law of
affinity only prohibited one brother from
successively marrying two sisters or two
cousins.
Barnfield is undoubtedly correct in her
suggestion that the two necessary dispensations from the consanguinity that existed
between Richard of Gloucester and Anne
Neville must have been obtained in due
course, as they were for George of Clarence
and Anne’s sister, even though the record of
them has not been found in the Vatican archives. It would have been unthinkable to
proceed to the marriage without securing
these essential and easily granted permissions.
28
As for Richard’s reported idea that he had
grounds for annulling his marriage to Anne to
pave his way to marrying Elizabeth of York,
Barnfield may be on to something when she
brings up the idea of ‘force’; but it would
have to have been Anne whose consent was
forced, not her guardian Clarence. Marrying
against the wishes of a parent or guardian
was never an invalidating impediment.
Another faulty judgment of Hicks, but one
which Barnfield goes along with, is that the
Croyland Chronicler expressed shock and
horror at Richard’s plan to marry his niece.
Such disapproval was indeed expressed by
Polydore Vergil, who was trained as a canon
lawyer, and, of course, also by Edward Hall in
his long-winded plagiarising of Vergil. But the
doctor of canon law who wrote this part of
the Croyland Chronicle, whom I have identified as Richard Lavender (Chancellor of John
Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, and his Commissary-General),5 did not express outrage at all.
He shows himself to have been clearly aware
that a papal dispensation for such a marriage
of uncle and niece was possible. In fact, one
had been granted not long before to an Italian count, a fact noted approvingly by Cardinal John Torquemada in his commentary on
Gratian’s Decretum. I discuss this case in my
essay, ‘Canonical Implications of Richard III's
Plan to Marry His Niece’.6 Hicks draws upon
my essay at length, but he mistakenly cites
me as saying that Torquemada held that the
pope could not dispense for uncle-niece marriages.7
What Torquemada did oppose was dispensations in the Levitical degrees, but he
realised that uncle-niece was not one of
them. It was, however, a common mistake to
think the contrary. In the usual summary of
the forbidden degrees, the relationships
were expressed only by single words, designating the prohibited female. One of these
words was neptis, which means either
‘granddaughter’ or ‘niece.’ The original listmaker meant ‘granddaughter’, since that’s
what Leviticus refers to. But it was often misinterpreted to mean ‘niece’.
Dr Lavender (to go with my identification)
may well have realised the truth about the
uncle-niece relationship, that it was not included in Leviticus. Furthermore, or alternatively, he may have known that there had
been occasional dispensations even from the
Levitical degrees. In fact the first recorded
authentic dispensation of this kind had been
given earlier in the fifteenth century to another Duke of Clarence, namely Thomas, son
of Henry IV. It occurred in 1411, when this
Clarence was allowed to marry the widow of
his uncle, John Beaufort (Henry IV’s brother),
a union explicitly forbidden in Leviticus.
Memory of this dispensation may have survived in England, and King Richard himself
may have known about it, since his own
grandmother, Joan Beaufort, was the sister
of John Beaufort (and Henry IV).8
According to Lavender, King Richard was
talked out of his scheme of trying to marry
Elizabeth – now made easier, since Queen
Anne had since died – by Catesby and
Ratcliffe. They were afraid that if Elizabeth
were to become queen she would take
vengeance on them for causing the deaths of
her uncle Anthony and her brother Richard
(no, not that Richard; her other brother Richard!). So they brought in more than a dozen
doctors of theology to convince Richard that
the pope could not dispense that degree of
consanguinity. It was altogether probable
that these theologians actually believed what
they were saying.
Wendy Moorhen in her article indicates
that Richard’s negotiation of a Portuguese
marriage for himself just after Anne’s death
proves that he was not entertaining the idea
of marrying Elizabeth. But this does not necessarily follow, since it was common to have
more than one marital iron in the fire in such
cases. And the Croyland author (Lavender)
does seem to know what he's talking about.
Let us move on now to the marriage of
Edward IV and the reasons it was considered
invalid, thus allowing Richard of Gloucester
to become king.
The Titulus regius that was presented to
29
Richard in 1483 and ratified by Parliament in
1484 gives two reasons for the invalidity of
Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville:
1. forced consent (Elizabeth and her mother
forced Edward’s consent by means of witchcraft).
2. precontract, i.e., bigamy (Edward had previously married another wife, who was still
living at the time, namely, Eleanor Butler).9
Hicks, in contrast, assumes that Edward
was not thought to be actually married to
Eleanor, but only ‘pledged’ to her (that is,
engaged to marry her in the future). In so
saying, he makes the common mistake of
taking the term ‘precontract’ to mean something like ‘preliminary contract of marriage’.
In fact, a precontract was a ‘previous marriage to someone else’. Being already married obviously precluded another marriage.
In contrast, a future-tense agreement to
marry in no way invalidated a subsequent
present-tense marriage to someone else.
I originally took Moorhen to agree with
Hicks’s misunderstanding of precontract,
since she cites his definition and does not
correct it. But it becomes clear that she
acknowledges that actual marriage and not
betrothal was at issue, since she speaks of
‘Edward’s clandestine second marriage’
(meaning that he did have a first marriage).
However, her suggestion that the clandestinity of his second marriage added to its invalidity cannot be sustained. True, secret marriage was forbidden by the Church, and a
man and woman who married secretly committed a sin and could be sentenced to do
penance. But nevertheless they would be
considered to be genuinely married, unless
some real impediment stood in the way.
The Titulus considers the secrecy of Edward’s marriage to be a black mark against it,
but the secrecy itself would not have affected validity. Perhaps it was stressed as an in-
criminating circumstance, since one common
reason for clandestinity was to prevent invalidating impediments from coming to light.
Notes
1. Michael Hicks, Anne Neville, Queen to
Richard III (Stroud 2006), pp. 195-210.
2. Marie Barnfield, ‘Richard’s “Incestuous”
Marriage’, Part 1: ‘Beyond the Papal Pale or
Simply the Wrong Sort of Affinity?’ Bulletin,
Summer 2006, pp. 55-57; Part 2: ‘Only if it
May Stand with the Law of the Church’, Bulletin, Autumn 2006, pp. 55-57.
3. Wendy Moorhen, ‘BBC History Magazine:
The Incestuous King? By Michael Hicks’, Bulletin, Autumn 2006, pp. 12-13.
4. I deal with Duby's mistakes about affinity
in ‘The Varieties of Love in Medieval Literature According to Gaston Paris’, Romance
Philology 40 (1986-87) 301-327, at pp. 32224.
5. H.A. Kelly, ‘The Last Chroniclers of Croyland’, The Ricardian vol. 7 no. 91 (December
1985) pp. 142-177; and ‘The Croyland Chronicle Tragedies’, The Ricardian vol.7 no.99
(December 1987) pp. 498-515; see my conclusion on pp. 510-511. In this same issue of
The Ricardian (vol.7 no. 99), pp. 516-19, my
identification is challenged by Alison Hanham, ‘Richard Lavender, Continuator?’ I reply to her objections in ‘Croyland Observations’, The Ricardian vol.8 no.108 (March
1990) pp. 334-341.
6. H.A. Kelly, ‘Canonical Implications of Richard III’s Plan to Marry His Niece’, Traditio 23
(1967) pp.269-311, at pp. 304-07. My findings in this article are summarised in The
Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII (Stanford
1976; repr. with new preface, Eugene: Wipf
and Stock, 2004), pp. 9-13.
7. Hicks, p. 208.
8. Joan Beaufort was the mother of Cecily
30
A Little Known Portuguese Source
for the Murder of the Princes
ANTÓNIO S. MARQUES
I
n my letter, (published in the December
Bulletin) about the possible marriage of
Richard III and Joanna of Portugal I referred
to some notes by Álvaro Lopes de Chaves, a
secretary to kings Afonso V and John II of
Portugal. In these notes he has a comment
about the fate of the sons of Edward IV
which I have never seen mentioned before
and it seems to me to deserve attention.
Not much is known about Álvaro Lopes.
In fact, I believe he would be news to many
non-medievalist Portuguese historians. This
is because his only known writings, in spite
of not being very voluminous, were left in an
unfinished and disorganised form and are
known as a sixteenth-century copy. We
know they are by Lopes because he refers to
himself in certain contexts and his name is
mentioned by other chroniclers in the same
contexts, such as missions to Navarre and
Castille. His notes don’t read at all like the
chronological narratives of the major chroniclers and have only recently attracted some
attention. They look more like a mix of disorganised working notes covering a long
period and were probably kept for some unfulfilled project such as the writing of his
memoirs. It is quite difficult to order them by
sequence of events or to know exactly when
each part was written, but this is irrelevant to
the reference to the fate of the princes, since
that particular entry is clearly dated: he specifically says he is writing it three years into
the reign of Henry VII, in 1488. In fact the
date in the notes reads as ‘IIIJcLXXbiij’
(that is actually 1478: ‘b’ was a cursive way
of showing the Roman figure 5), but it is
clear that an X has been inadvertently left
out, given the context: ‘... the Earl of Richmond rose to kingship, the kingdom not belonging to him, and he married a daughter of
the king to satisfy that faction and thus does
he reign peacefully in IIIJcLXXbiij of the
present era, going on three years.’
Although not a lot is known about Lopes
it is clear that he was in the confidence of
both Afonso V and John II and therefore, as
someone close to the king himself, he would
presumably be aware of top-level rumours
the court might be getting directly from English sources rather than second-hand continental speculations. He attributes the initiative of the murders to Richard III as might
have been expected after all the rumours had
settled down and Richard himself had been
defeated and gone. However, he doesn’t follow the traditional Tudor account of the murders. Instead, he squarely points to Buckingham as the actual perpetrator, though under
Richard’s orders. This could as well be an
indication of Buckingham’s guilt, either on
his sole initiative or as an agent of Henry
Tudor or, even more likely, Henry’s mother.
Other chroniclers, of course, mention
Buckingham as the possible perpetrator of
the murders. For example, Commynes points
to Richard in one passage, to Buckingham in
another. Molinet says ambiguously that ‘on
the day that Edward’s sons were assassinated, there came to the Tower of London the
Duke of Buckingham, who was believed,
mistakenly, to have murdered the children in
order to forward his pretensions to the
crown’. An awkward ‘explanation’ seems to
have developed here, implying second
thoughts on very suspicious events, Molinet
going as far as actually stating that people
had been inclined to believe that Buckingham had done the ugly deed on his own in
order to usurp the crown. Nothing of this is
new, but note that the apparently independent Portuguese reference seems to be more
31
categorical as to Buckingham’s implication
than other, better known, ones.
It is noticeable that his reference to the
princes looks rather similar to the one in the
Dutch Divisie Chronicle, in the sense that
both mention murder by starvation (an improbable notion, of course, but not necessarily
reflecting on the rest of the story) and at the
hands of Buckingham (the interesting part
even when Richard is also reputed guilty,
since it puts the Tudor version in doubt). The
Divisie Chronicle has been dated to about
1500 but, of course, both could be using the
same source. Anyway, it’s one more mention
of Buckingham’s name in connection with the
possible murders, underlining the weakness
of the Tudor myth and helping to open the
door to more doubts.
Here is the passage in question:
Buckingham, under whose custody
the said Princes were starved to death.
And the said Gloucester, author of
this murder out of his desire to be
king, wishing to clear himself of so
ugly an event, beheaded the Duke of
Buckingham and rose to kingship …
Of course, contrary to the explanation
contrived by Álvaro Lopes in order to give
some logic to the mysterious succession of
events he is reporting, Buckingham's rebellion was an initiative of his own that took
Richard by surprise, rather than the response
to any machiavellian plot on Richard's part to
pass the blame over to the presumed accomplice that directly ordered the deed, as Álvaro
Lopes implies. But what I find particularly
striking in his account is the unqualified mention of Buckingham as the actual perpetrator
of the murders.
Note: the only complete edition of the
little known notes is Álvaro Lopes de Chaves,
Livro de Apontamentos (1438-1489), (Códice
443 da Colecção Pombalina da B.N.L.), Imprensa Nacional - Casa da Moeda, Lisboa,
1983 (there is no ISBN). The Dutch Divisie
Chronicle was described in The Ricardian,
vol. 3, no.46, pp. 12-13, 1974.
E depois do falecimento del Rej Duarte que foj no anno de 83 outro seu
jrmão o Duque de Grosetia ouue a seu
poder o Princepe de Gales e o Duque
d Eorca que erão moços filhos do dito
Rej seu jrmão e os entregou ao Duque
de Boquincom que os tiuesse em cujo
poder os ditos Princepes forão mortos
a fame, e os ditos de Grosetra que
desta morte era autor por se alcar por
Rej querendo sse de tam feo caso alimpar degolou o Duque de Boquincom e alçou sse por Rej …
[Members may be interested to have references to previous articles on the possible Portuguese marriage from The Ricardian. These
are Barrie Williams, ‘The Portuguese Connection and the Significance of the ‘Holy
Princess’’, The Ricardian, vol. 6, pp. 138145, Doreen Court, ‘The Portuguese Connection: A Communication’, The Ricardian, vol.
6, pp.190-193 and Barrie Williams, ‘The Portuguese Marriage Negotiations: A Reply’,
The Ricardian, vol. 6, pp. 235-236.]
In translation:
And after the passing away of king
Edward in the year of 83, another one
of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of
Wales and the Duke of York, the
young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of
32
Lord Olivier – A Closet
Ricardian? (Part 2)
GEOFFREY WHEELER
I
n the UK the activities of ‘The Friends of
Richard III Inc.’ (see Bulletin, Autumn
2006) had also not gone unnoticed, with several column inches devoted to their publicity
efforts throughout the 1950s, though a certain
amount of news coverage had also been generated in the press by a 1952 dramatisation of
The Princes in the Tower (based on The
Daughter of Time), the production of Dickon
as already noted, and the Middleham memorial, which resulted in the predictable exchange
of letters in the pages of local and daily newspapers.
Few of the actual reviews of the film,
however, include any references to the historical Richard, or the controversy, despite material included in the Exhibitor’s Campaign
Book. In contrast to the American brochure,
this is a rather more ‘sensationalist’ production, though it ought to be remembered that,
despite the success of Olivier’s Henry V and
Hamlet films, as well as earlier releases such
as the 1953 Julius Caesar, Shakespeare was
still regarded very much as ‘box-office poison’, and so with Richard III popular emphasis was placed very much on the ‘horrorstory’ angle, albeit with a definite ‘cartoon’
element to the posters and advertising material. A cut-out, blood-spattered weapon dominates the gold cover, labelled Richard III –
the hunchback king!, with newspaper adblocks continuing the theme: He used an axe
to gain the crown! (though of course, as the
deaths of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey are not
shown, and that of Buckingham, though
filmed, was apparently cut from the released
film, Hastings is the only victim seen to die
this way), and a flyer, dominated by the
looming shadow of the king (in coronation
robes, again, not an image seen in the film)
announces Richard III is coming!, opening to
reveal his successive victims: Lady Anne,
Clarence, Hastings, the princes and Buckingham, captioned: One man – twisted in mind
and body – brought DEATH to all who stood
in his way! However, tucked away in the selection of news stories on the cast and the
filming, offered for publication, we find a
piece on Was Richard III a villain or a saint?
again only featuring ‘The Friends’ but concluding ‘in this country, as well, a young man
who has been seen on TV holds this belief.
His name is Plantagenet Somerset Fry. Plantagenet has been his nickname for several
years – mainly because of his interest in vindicating Richard III’.1 Ideas for schools promotions include the organisation of essays
based on the film, discussions prior to their
visits on ‘the historical and prestige value of
Richard III’, whilst the list of books then currently available, besides Shakespeare texts,
recommends Paul Murray Kendall, Carola
Oman’s Crouchback, V.H.H. Green’s The
Later Plantagenets, and Hugh Ross Williamson’s Historical Whodunnits.
Finally, a couple of other observations on
how certain details in the film may be used to
support Olivier’s possible favourable attitude
towards Richard. One notable departure from
the Shakespeare text is, of course, his staging
of the climax to the battle of Bosworth. After
a perfunctory clash of swords with Stanley
Baker’s Richmond, he reverts to a more historically-based conclusion, with the unhorsed
king surrounded and killed by the Stanley
forces, with a death-scene that usually evokes
sympathy from even the most hardened audience. Then, as the contemporary accounts
relate, we see the body slung over a horse,
and its departure for Leicester. In connection
33
with this scene, the Society’s late President,
Patrick Bacon, always used to make a great
point of drawing attention to one shot – the
close-up of the Garter on Richard’s leg, with
its motto Honi soit qui mal y pense, (variously
translated as shame be to him (or dishonoured
be he) who thinks evil of it, or more simply
Evil to him who evil thinks, which Patrick
maintained was a special ‘coded’ reference
for the Society, adding in his typical stagewhisper, ‘He’s really one of us!’. Unfortunately, he never revealed any definite source
for this, and I thought it was destined to remain an apocryphal tale until a recent interview with Frances Tannehill (Alexander
Clark’s widow) in the USA Ricardian Register2 confirmed that prior to the broadcast
Olivier had dined with the couple. When she
was asked about his views on Richard she
was adamant that, at heart, he was a revisionist. ‘He told us so at dinner,’ she maintains.
‘In fact, he talked about that scene at the end,
where they’re bringing Richard’s body back
from Bosworth and the camera focuses on the
Garter. ‘Did you see that?’ he asked me. ‘I
put that in especially for you people.’ However, at least one film critic saw a more prosaic
explanation: ‘Unlike the film Hamlet
(notorious for the over-simplification in its
prologue as the ‘story of a man who could not
make up his mind’), this epitaph is to tell us
Richard was a man who made up a nasty
one.’3 Although at first sight this may seem a
rather obscure and esoteric reference to be
made, and over the years many analyses of
his films (particularly by American academics) have drawn inferences and read symbolism into the scenes that were doubtless unintended originally, in this instance it is not the
only example in the film of a ‘hidden’ subtext. Olivier always professed that he was
‘not a great intellectual’, but certainly someone connected with the film script, either his
text adviser, Alan Dent, or more probably the
composer, William Walton, suggested something to him, which has gone unnoticed or
unappreciated by the millions of people who
have viewed the film over the years. It concerns the Latin chant sung by the two monks,
seemingly a permanent fixture of Edward
IV’s throne room. In the scene where Richard whispers in the king’s ear about Clarence’s plotting, they are heard singing lines
from Psalm 51:5, before closing their huge
book, looking at each other resignedly, and
folding their arms. The particular lines are:
‘Behold, I was brought forth from iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me’, thus
giving an ironic comment on the action
played out before them, but one that would
only have been recognised by the small proportion of Latin scholars or high-church Catholics watching the film.4
Despite the subsequent films of Ian
McKellen and Al Pacino, and numerous stage
interpretations, it is Olivier whose name is
still synonymous with the role. Whether the
new interpretation centre at Bosworth, when
it reopens, will continue to screen the battle
scene remains to be seen, but in the meantime
visitors to the Tower, as we discovered recently, are now shown a continuous loop of
the relevant scenes, projected on to the wall
of a room in the ‘Bloody Tower’, devoted to a
display on the controversy concerning ‘the
murder of the princes’, doubtless to assist
them in making up their minds when registering their votes on the electronic score indicator provided.
Notes and References
1. Fry made his name on the quiz Double
your Money, and of course was later the author of several books, on royalty and British
castles
2. Laura Blanchard, ‘Richard’s First American Friends’, Ricardian Register, vol. XVIII,
no. 4, Winter, 1993, pp. 4-7
3. Roy Walker ‘Bottled Spider’, Twentieth
Century Magazine, January 1956, p. 65
4. As noted by Constance A. Brown
‘Olivier’s Richard III – a re-evaluation’, Film
Quarterly, Summer 1967, pp. 23-32
34
Logge Notes and Queries:
Service and Return
LESLEY BOATWRIGHT
O
f the 378 Logge testators, 138 left legacies to their servants. These range from
a few pence to large sums of money and valuable goods. It is, perhaps, even less helpful
than usual to produce statistics on this point,
because many of the people receiving legacies of a few shillings in these wills may well
be servants even if the testator doesn’t say so.
However, a few figures may be in order.
The percentage of women (all but two of
them widows) and clergymen remembering
their servants was considerably higher than
that of men (57% of the 37 clergymen, 53%
of the 40 women, but only 32% of the 301
men). Of course, many men simply entrusted
their wives with the job of distributing the
residue ‘for the good of my soul’, which may
well include rewards to servants. Again, the
households of widows and clergymen were
more likely to be broken up after the testator’s death, and the servants faced with the
necessity of finding new employment. Most
ordinary servants must have been very nervous about their own prospects when their
master or mistress died, and the household
was broken up; heirs may well have had their
own households; widows would down-size.
John Roger, esquire of Freefolk, Hants
(will 322) was well aware of this: ‘I will that
my houshold be kept hole from the tyme of
my deth forthward till my moneth mynde be
passid and than I will that everich of my manyall servantes have of my goodes biside his
gown his half yere wages to pray for my soule
and also that he may the better provide hym
silf a new maister.’ Richard Beauchamp,
bishop of Salisbury, instructed that his household was to be kept together for one term, and
each servant was to receive half a year’s wages (32). Sir Roger Lewkenor (9) said that his
household was to be kept together till the following Michaelmas, which was probably the
local hiring day.
Generally speaking, the servants are described as such, rather than given specific
designations, but we have a riding man and a
shepherd (155), a bailiff (188), a waterbearer
(265), counting-house clerks (17), another
shepherd (237), grooms, a receiver and a butler (260) and ‘Edmund of the Stable’ who is
given £20 in ready money and a further 6
marks a year for life by William Stepham
(177) (a mark was worth 13s 4d so he received £4).
One group of servants did receive a number of special mentions: the kitchen staff. Sir
Ralph Verney left John his cook 20s., and
10s. each to ‘John Jakke child of my kichen’
and ‘John Burdigan of my kychen’ (7). Cooks
are also mentioned by seven other testators,
and ‘my child in my kitchen’ by four more.
Five leave legacies to men described as ‘of
the kitchen’, and there are two bakers and a
slaughter-man. These kitchen servants were
all male.
Dame Jane Barre (196), whose will is one
of the longest in the Register, left individual
legacies to 16 named servants with, and to 7
named servants without, specific jobdescriptions, as well as to two women described as ‘my gentlewomen’, and her chantry
priest (see below). Her cook got two marks;
20s. each went to her yeoman of the
‘brewarn’, her yeoman of the stable, two
clerks, her baker, her butler and her panterer,
and the last two also got silver spoons. Her
35
laundress, her servant of the chamber, and her
slaughterman each got one mark. These sums
may indicate ranking within the household,
but we cannot really be sure; Dame Jane may
also have taken length of service into consideration.
Really well-to-do people employed their
own private clergymen, and generally provided well for them in their wills. Dame Jane
Barre left Sir Philip Beynham, her chantry
priest, ‘my fayre litle portues of Salisbery use
the which is now covered with grene cloth of
bawdekyn and lyeth for the most parte in my
parlour wyndowe in a bagge ... my litle clok
that hongith in my parlour in the wyndowe’, a
book called Pupilla Oculi, which seems to
have been a manual for priests, a calendar,
£10 in money and ‘a grete flatt rose pece of
silver with a cover to the same of silver’
(196). Sir John Scott (188) employed two
clergymen. There was Sir John Bonbassall,
his priest, whom his wife was to pay 5 marks
a year, with his meat and drink, to sing for his
soul in Brabourn church for ten years. Moreover, Scott wished to leave a copy of a book
‘callid Legendis’ to two churches and the
chapel of the Mote in Sussex; he says, ‘And I
will that the seid sir John shalhave to write,
make and to complete my bokis callid Legendis bequethyn as is aforseid’ 40s. a year for
three years. Later in the will, Scott tells his
chaplain, Sir William, to travel to Rome and
say prayers there for him, ‘for the which labour the seid Sir William shall have to do yt
with of my seid wiff x li’. When Sir William
got back from Rome, provided that the testator’s son agreed, he was to be at the Mote,
‘byding on the chauntry there’ and paid 40s. a
year for his singing, ‘for so long season as
unto the tyme yt shall happ the seid Sir William to be better beneficed’.
There are a few indications that some
servants were indeed special. John Neuburgh
(165), whose property was in Dorset, left his
wife all her own goods, and five marks’ worth
of his goods. His servants were to have a full
year’s wages and go where they wished.
‘Also I will that my laundress [lotrix] in London shall receive ten marks ... to pray for me.’
We see from his inquisition post mortem
(C142/1/43) that he had no children, as his
heir was his brother Roger, aged 25. I can’t
help wondering how his laundress in London
figured in his life.
Another man who seems to have left an
inordinate amount of money and goods to a
servant was Charles Bulkeley (65). He left his
son William £20, his son Roger 20 marks,
and his son Thomas £10. A fourth son, Robert, was the eldest at 25, as the inquisition
post mortem (C141/5/8) shows. Robert was
the residuary legatee. There are a few other
legacies, notably £10 to Sir William Berkeley, obviously Bulkeley’s good lord, but the
legacy that takes up a good third of the text of
the will is to his servant Agnes Cristismasse.
She got 40 marks (which is more than William got), ‘alle my parchase land in Salisbury’ (an inn called the White Horse), and
other land, which is to revert to his heirs
when Agnes dies. ‘Also I will that the said
Agnes have iiij beddis, that is to say ij
fethirbeddes and ij matrasses with all the coverlytes, blankettes and shetes ... and the
hangyng of one chambre of worstede grene or
red’, 12 cattle, his flat pieces, 12 silver
spoons, and 2 silver salt-cellars ‘of the fasshion of the iij leved grasse’.
Some testators are concerned for old servants, and leave them pensions. Sometimes
this takes the form of money, sometimes security of tenure in the houses they occupied
(47, 164, 374). Sir John Scott (188), who
seems to have been laudably concerned for
his dependants, left 10 marks each to five old
servants; also his old servant Henry Turner
got 40s. a year for life, and two other servants, Thomas Belling and John Adam were
each to get a pension of 20s. a year when they
‘[fell] from labour into age’. John Shelley, a
mercer and ex-sheriff of London (374), provided for his servant Margaret Clare, instructing his son to pay her 20s. a year in four instalments ‘toward the relevying of hyr pouere
degre’. And she was to get a rent-free house
in Houndesden (except that she had to pay
10d. a year quit-rent) and two loads of wood a
year from his wood at Houndesden. We have
one testator at least, the rich cloth-merchant
Thomas Spring of Lavenham, who took
thought for his industrial work-force, whom
he obviously valued highly. He left the large
36
sum of 100 marks to be shared among his
spinsters, fullers and weavers at the discretion
of his executors, though there is no mention
in his very short will of his household servants.
There is another legacy, less tangible but
very pleasing, that testators could leave their
servants, and that is their commendation and
thanks. Not many trouble to do so. I have
found eight. Richard Beauchamp, bishop of
Salisbury (32) said that as Sir Robert Hunt
gave him good and faithful service, painstak-
ingly rendered, he should be preferred to all
others as chaplain for his chantry. Ralph Shaa
(96), who preached That Sermon at St Paul’s
Cross in 1483, left his servants Thomas Coke
and Robert Lovett 26s.8d. each above their
wages for their good service. Other testators
who praised their servants were Philip Colyar
(123), Robert Ryngeborn (164), Margery
Counsell (182), Sir John Scott (188), John
Knyvett (330) and Sir Richard Harcourt
(367).
Obituaries
Dorothy Mitchell
We are sorry to report that Dorothy Mitchell has died at the age of 80. Her funeral was held at
York Minster on 13 February.
Dorothy Mitchell was born in York in 1926. She became a model, and catering manageress at
Betty’s Tea Rooms in St Helen’s Square, York. Thirty years ago, she established the Society of
the Friends of Richard III. Through her Society, she helped to raise funds towards the renovations of the stonework of York Minster, and she also helped to organise a pageant to raise funds
for the rebuilding of Sheriff Hutton village hall.
In 1997, the Press reported how her society donated a window to York Minster to mark the
545th anniversary of Richard III’s birthday. ‘Richard was a great benefactor to York Minster, and
the people of York thought a lot of him,’ Dorothy said at the time. ‘The window is a very simple
and beautiful gift.’
Our condolences go to Dorothy’s family and friends, and to the Society of the Friends of
Richard III, who have lost their founder and a tireless campaigner for Richard III.
Mrs C Wheeler
It is with regret that the Society has heard of the death of Mrs Wheeler of Peterborough. Her son
Simon said that she had been a passionate member over the years, and took tremendous pleasure
from the Society, attending several trips and events over the years. Simon thanked us for fuelling
that interest and wishes members well for the future as he knew his mother would have done. Our
sympathies go to Simon and Mrs Wheeler’s family.
Recently Deceased Members
Mrs D. Ellis, Derby, Derbyshire. Joined 1989
Mr M.G. Harrison, Wickford, Essex. Joined 1988
Mrs Mary Humphris, Gillingham, Kent. Joined 1985
Mrs G. C. Power, Chichester,West Sussex. Joined 2001
Mrs F. Radok, Harrold, Bedfordshire. Joined 2001
37
Correspondence
Will contributors please note the letters may be edited or reduced to conform to the standards of
the Bulletin.
ous one was to erupt between More and a
French poet, Germanus Brixius, the details of
which need not concern us, save to say that it
culminated in Brixius penning a long, bitter
poem called Antimorus, in which he accused
More of being a poor poet in his recently published Epigrams, and, more seriusly than this,
of slandering Henry VII in the Latin poems
congratulating Henry VIII on his accession,
written years before but only now published.
This was dangerous stuff, and both More and
Erasmus were alarmed. Brixius declared that
flattering Henry VIII and hailing his new
reign as a blessed relief from the miserable
old miser who had gone before was a base
attack, and that the new king should exile
such a poet – or worse. More replied with his
famous Letter Against Brixius, repudiating all
the insults that had been flung at him as a
poor versemaster. As to the false feet in his
verses, More declared, well, if his feet were
not sound, neither was his opponent’s head!
Richard Marius, in his Thomas More, thinks
that ‘the most interesting thing in the long
epistle is his careful dance around the accusation that he had slandered Henry VII’. More
suggested that Henry VII was misled by bad
councillors, and, as Marius remarks, ‘It was
standard practice to condemn royal councillors when a king did badly; the rhetoric of the
rebellions of the time hardly ever condemned
kings; rebels habitually declared that they
took up arms against those who imprisoned
kings with bad advice.’
Erasmus worked hard to calm both men,
in his habitual role as peacemaker, and peace
between the two of them was eventually won.
In an interesting echo of the earlier letter to
Polydore Vergil, Erasmus wrote to the French
scholar, William Budaeus, who had also
helped to calm the hostilities, saying that
More planned no further attacks and did not
even remember the little conflict.
Sir Thomas More’s Opinions –
and Disputes
From Marilyn Garabet, Ledaig by Oban
I was interested to read Peter Fellgett’s letter
– which has, I believe, appeared in the last
two editions of the Bulletin!* However, I suspect that he has misinterpreted More’s use of
‘men say’ statements in his History of King
Richard III. Many historians would go along
with Alison Hanham, who, in her 1975 book
Richard III and his Early Historians 14831535, draws attention to the fact that More
was famous as an intellectual joker and that,
when he uses phrases along the lines of ‘some
wise men think’ or ‘they that thus deem’ he
is, in fact, having a dig at Polydore Vergil.
Charles Ross, in his Richard III, points out
that More was writing his History of King
Richard III at the same time as Vergil was
penning his Historia, and that the two works
would have circulated in manuscript, both
men sharing the same sources of information
and moving in similar circles. However, at
some point or other, More and Vergil had a
serious disagreement, the details of which are,
unfortunately, lost. It seems more than likely
that More got his revenge by making fun of
Vergil in his own account of Richard’s reign
– members of More’s fashionable set, who
were reading both manuscripts, would have
known instantly who was More’s unfortunate
target, and it doubtless caused much amusement at Vergil’s expense. In despair, Vergil
wrote a letter to Erasmus (a friend of both
More and himself) which is, unfortunately,
lost to us, but in which he appears to have detailed all his grievances on the More front.
Erasmus’s reply has, fortunately, survived the
centuries, and in it he attempts to soothe Vergil by saying things along the lines of, ‘What
you write about More is all nonsense; why, he
does not remember even grave injuries ...’
This was not the only literary dispute
More became embroiled in. A far more seri38
* [Oops! Still, it was an interesting point, and
has generated an interesting reply.]
deed, this Queen Elizabeth deserves several
new biographies, since various authors provide differing perspectives about their subject’s life.
I am deep into researching and writing a
biography of Elizabeth of York, whose life is
much more interesting and important than the
neglect of her in recent histories would indicate. The problem is that my research frequently leads me off into side-traps that have
little to do with my topic, but everything to do
with my love of medieval history. One tangent, for instance, led to a dead end when I
could discover almost nothing about the etiology and nature of the ‘sweating sickness’, although I encountered various and curious
ways of treating it. Then I spent weeks reading medieval cookbooks, even though I hardly ever open modern one!
Bev Palmer’s observation will help keep
me on target and at my computer. Elizabeth
of York is long overdue for more attention.
[Arlene comments: ‘I read every word of the
Ricardian Bulletin, even though it arrives in
California months after publication. Thank
you for keeping those of us in the hinterlands
informed of the latest news about Richard
III.’]
(Arlene is the author of Elizabeth Wydeville
The Slandered Queen Published by Tempus
2005 and now available in paperback. Ed.)
Joanna of Portugal
From Pamela Hill, Radlett
I was delighted and interested to read the Portuguese assessment of the real Joanna’s identity. My source, the Clarendon series of European genealogical trees, does not mention unmarried women without descent, so although
the first Joanna, second queen of Henry IV of
Castile, was included, the younger and certainly more probable one was not. I was glad
to learn about her, as I had concluded that the
sister of the famous Maximilian’s mother
must be the one coeval with Richard III,
which in a way she was. Her dates are not
given in Clarendon. However, the point both
António Marques and I have made is that
Richard III made it clear he had no intention
of marrying his niece Elizabeth. Also, in the
case of either Joanna there would be descent
from John of Gaunt, not always beneficial as
regards intermarriage of descendants.
Regarding La Beltraneja – or La Excelente Señora – it may be earlier Tudor propaganda that has made us in this country regard her
as an impostor. Her rival Isabella was the
much-desired mother-in-law of Henry VII’s
son Arthur. Isabella’s father, by a second
marriage, was the able king quoted by
António Marques, but his son Henry IV, by
his first, seems to have been inept, and having
had no descendants by his first queen,
Blanche of Navarre, gave Isabella’s supporters a handle to use against any official descendant of his second to Joanna. If La Beltraneja had the right to Castile, a great deal of
harm would have been averted had her accession been secured rather than Isabella’s on
Henry IV’s death in 1474. The more one
thinks of it, the broader the spectrum becomes.
I greatly look forward to reading António
Marques’ article.
From Carrie Sharlow, USA
I received my quarterly Richard III Society
package in the post yesterday and upon reading the Bulletin, I was thrilled to note Bev
Palmer’s letter ‘crying out for a biography’
for Elizabeth of York. I wrote my Master’s
Dissertation on historical and literary portrayals of Elizabeth of York and I certainly agree
with Ms Palmer that new biography on this
historical character is needed.
While we wait, she may want to look for
the three titles below, which I found useful
and interesting. The third isn’t specifically
about Elizabeth of York, but it does give
some insight into the Tudor household and
mentions her frequently in her adulthood.
Joanna L. Chamberlayne, ‘English
Queenship 1445-1503’ (unpublished dissertation, University of York, 1999)
Crying Out for a Biography
From Arlene Okerlund, American Branch
Bev Palmer [December Bulletin] is correct
that Elizabeth of York is ‘surely the one person who is crying out for a biography’. In39
Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth with a Memoir
of Elizabeth of York, and Notes (London,
Frederick Muller Ltd, 1972)
Maria Perry, The Sisters of Henry VIII:
The Tumultuous Lives of Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France (Colorado, Da Capo
Press, 2000)
Unfortunately, most of the historians I’ve
read seemed to feel that once Elizabeth married Henry VII, her life became uninteresting.
For three years her life was material perfect
for the romance novel, which is exactly where
you can find her most of the time nowadays.
Once she became a wife, a mother, and a
queen, she vanished from the pages of history. I find it odd that a queen is consigned to
the shadows.
I have been collecting a variety of books
in several genres on the subject of Elizabeth
of York, if Ms Palmer is interested in borrowing them. Most are fiction, but there are some
biographies.
I’m looking forward to a modern biography of this little known queen. Perhaps
someone will undertake it soon. Elizabeth,
too, needs to be rescued form an unfortunate,
false reputation.
Australia in 1914-15 lecturing on Shakespeare.
The house at Fallows Green, Harpenden,
where Ellen Terry lived with Edward Godwin
(who was actually never her husband) was
designed and built by Godwin, a gifted man
who combined the talents of architect and theatrical costume and furniture designer, rather
in the manner of William Morris; one of his
surviving buildings is, I believe, the town hall
at Northampton. Oscar Wilde called Godwin,
who died in 1886, ‘one of the most astute
spirits of this century in England’.
I’m sorry I can’t supply any information
about the golden boar weather vane.
What’s in a Name?
From Doug Weeks, Kent
Back in 1974, Arthur Mee wrote of Ashford
in Kent, ‘large-scale expansion of the town
seems inevitable’. Unfortunately, his words
were prophetic. Amongst this expansion, a
new housing development has had an approach named ‘Sir John Fogge Avenue’ (at
least it’s spelt correctly) – no evidence of
trees, this being a double carriageway, plus a
railway track away from a predominantly exCouncil housing estate named Repton Manor,
the Fogge country seat. The much-altered final building of this name still stands near by
uninhabited and inaccessible, although there
may be plans to convert it into a
pub/restaurant when it is finally surrounded
by houses.
So, the lack of trees apart, without thinking about it one could say that the street-name
made sense. Sir John is well known (as well
known as any fifteenth-century person is to
the general public) as the benefactor of the
local parish church, wherein he is buried in a
much mutilated tomb, plus as the builder of
the College of Priests, the half-timbered truncated remaining part of which still faces the
churchyard.
But – ‘wait!’, I hear you all say, and some
shout. ‘This is the man who thrice, probably
because of his Haute relatives, was guilty of
treason towards Richard III. It was only
through coming out on the winning side that
he was able to finance his community-
Ellen Terry and her houses
From Angela Moreton, Yorkshire Branch
I hope you will permit a letter not on a strictly
Ricardian (or even medieval) theme, with reference to Diana Powell’s interesting report in
the last Bulletin (pp. 77-8) on the visit to
Romney Marsh and in particular to Smallhythe Place. This beautiful early sixteenthcentury house was originally the home of the
harbour-master at Tenterden, but of course
the sea has long since receded. By the time
Dame Ellen Terry bought the property it was
being referred to as ‘The Farm’.
I must protest at the description of Dame
Ellen as in ‘her advancing years’ when she
first saw Smallhythe; she eventually purchased it in 1900 when she was still ‘only’
53, and she died there in 1928 at the age of
81. Even after 1900 she was evidently not yet
so decrepit that she couldn’t tour the US and
40
spending spree.’
Approaching Ashford Borough Council, I
was surprised to learn that one person was
responsible for allocating new street names.
My attempts to contact her by phone were not
successful, so I eventually wrote, being diplomatic, as always, making no mention of King
Richard, merely the serial traitorous character
of Fogge. Hands up all who are surprised that
I never received a reply. At least I tried. Good
old Ashford Borough Council, commemorating the local villain.
of this series is both out of place and unworthy.
Mr Bennett is, if you like, a ‘modern’ Ricardian Hero – but since the 50th Anniversary
series is examining the role and contribution
of those people involved in the crucial early
years of the Society it hardly seems relevant
to make such a sour remark. Maybe Mr
Weeks’ priorities are the ones that have got
mixed up in this instance.
King Richard III College – in Majorca
From Jean Rossiter, Windsor
Some friends of mine, knowing my interest in
Richard III, told me of the ‘King Richard III
College’ in Portals Nous near Palma, Majorca, which they had discovered on holiday. It
is a private British school founded in 1969
which provides a complete education from
Reception to Year 13. My friends chatted to
some pupils who did not seem to know who
Richard III was, but when told that he was the
last Plantagent King said that they had a
House called Plantagenet. I enclose a photograph showing the badge.
Completing the Set: Henry VIII’s Other
Wives
From Howard Choppin
I read with interest Stephen Lark’s short article in the Winter 2006 Bulletin, on the Plantagenet descent of Catherine Parr and Anne of
Cleves. If Edward I is not a common ancestor to all six wives, then Stephen Lark needs
to take this up with the publishers of Antonia
Fraser’s Six Wives of Henry VIII. Various
editions of this book contain a genealogical
table showing how each wife descends from
Edward I. In Anne of Cleves’ case a descent
is claimed for her via Edward’s daughter
Margaret, who married a duke of Brabant; the
descendants of this couple included the dukes
of Burgundy and, through a later marriage,
the dukes of Cleves.
Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon did
not both descend from Blanche of Lancaster,
only Catherine did. However, together they
did descend from John of Gaunt through all
three of his wives – with Catherine descending from Blanche of Lancaster and Constance
of Castile, and Henry able to claim Catherine
Swynford as an ancestor through both his parents.
[We are investigating further – Ed.]
Michael S Bennett – Ricardian Hero?
From Veronica Chambers
I cannot help feeling that your correspondent
Mr Weeks has missed the whole point of the
‘Ricardian Heroes’ series. Yes, what Michael
Bennett is doing is an amazing feat, showing
real dedication as a Society member, and is to
be applauded and supported. However, to use
him to introduce and dismiss with such unnecessarily disparaging remarks the subjects
The Richard III College,
Majorca
41
The Barton Library
The Non-Fiction Books Have Arrived in their New Home
The Library arrived on a cold, blustery and generally wet late November afternoon. Fortunately
the rain held off while the books were off-loaded from the lorry, which was a relief. The books
remained downstairs and the shelving was taken upstairs. The room had been redecorated for the
occasion, so what was my son’s bedroom for close on twenty years has now become the Barton
Library.
The shelving went up rather well and then it was time to bring up the books - this was a somewhat corpse inducing exercise, because they were heavy. Jane and Neil Trump had put the books
in alphabetical order, so once the crates were sorted it was quite straightforward to place the
books on the shelves, and we made good progress, slowed somewhat at times by stopping to read
various passages in the books. There is such a variety of subjects in the Barton Library, medieval
cookery, gardening and stained glass to name but three. It is also interesting to note that there are
books which cover the anti-Richard viewpoint as well as the positive view.
I have already had one donation of three books, thanks to Tracy Upex. I have loaned out
Lynda Pidgeon's dissertation which was mentioned in the last issue of the Bulletin, and had a request for a description of the Duke of Buckingham’s character for an actor who has to play him.
I am not planning to have an open day, since where I live is not conducive to parking, but anyone is welcome to come and see the Barton Library so long as you give my wife and me a bit of
notice, in order to tidy up and make sure we are not away. I will be happy to pick up anyone from
Preston station, if you do not have a car.
Two things I should like to add: firstly Carolyn and Jane had something like thirty-five years
experience with the Barton Library. I have not yet had two months, so please bear with me while
I try and get up to speed, and secondly I should like to record my thanks to my wife Lisa, without
her enthusiastic help I would never have been able to manage. It was she who put the wall paper
up and put the carpet down to make a new home for the Library, and helped with all the lifting
and carrying.
I look forward to hearing from you with your requests.
Keith Horry
Non-Fiction Papers: What Are You All Reading?
As Keith has pointed out above the Society’s Non-Fiction Library covers a very wide range of
subjects and there are books and papers on topics to interest every member. Becky looked at last
year’s requests for papers to see which subjects were the most popular and it was no surprise to
find that biographical material won hands down, with 68 requests for articles about Richard III
himself, with Richard Duke of York, Edward IV, Francis Lovell and the Princes in the Tower as
the runners up. The most popular women were Anne Neville and Cecily Neville. The other subject areas represented in the Library are shown on the graph below – if we had included the 200
biographical papers borrowed their column would have been off the top of the page
Latest Additions to the Library
Listed below are a selection of books and articles that have been added to the Library. All the
books are hard back unless otherwise described.
Papers
ASHDOWN-HILL, John ‘The Death of Edward V: New Evidence from Colchester’ (from Essex Archaeology and History, Vol 35, 2004) This article explores the death of Edward V through
the use of the Colchester Oath Book – one entry in the Book appears to be the earliest surviving
42
Non-Fiction Papers Library Loans
2nd October 2005 - 2nd October 2006
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BATTLES
DRAMA
TOPOGRAPHICAL
BALLADS AND
POETRY
GOVERNMENT & SOCIAL HISTORY RICARDIAN BACK
POLITICS
ISSUES
substantial record implying that Edward may have been dead by the autumn of 1483.
ASHDOWN-HILL, John ‘Suffolk Connections of the House of York’ (from Proceedings of
the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 2006) A fascinating look at visits made to the
county of Suffolk by Edward IV, Richard III and Cecily Neville.
Fiction Books
BENNETT, Vanora Portrait of an Unknown Woman (hardback, 2006) Based on Jack Leslau’s
controversial theory of the survival of the two sons of Edward IV in the household of Sir Thomas
More (see the review on p. 15 of the Winter 2006 edition of the Bulletin).
CLAYTON, Elaine The Yeoman’s Daring Daughter and the Princes in the Tower (hardback,
undated) A story for younger children featuring Jane, the daughter of a yeoman warder at the
Tower, and how she helps the Princes to escape.
FRAZER, Margaret The Boy’s Tale (paperback, 1995) A Sister Frevisse medieval murder
mystery: the two young half-brothers of Henry VI are offered sanctuary at St Frideswide’s Abbey.
GRAEME-EVANS, Posie The Exiled (paperback, 2005) The second book in the trilogy about
Anne de Bohun, illegitimate daughter of Henry VI, the king who was usurped by the man she
loves. Exiled in Bruges she struggles to find peace in a dangerous world of treachery and suspicion where someone very powerful wants her dead.
HUME, Robert Perkin Warbeck, the Boy who would be King (paperback, 2005) A children’s
book, linked to the history curriculum for Key Stage 3. Perkin Warbeck is awaiting his trial in
1499 and looks back over what has happened in his life since he left Flanders.
WORTH, Sandra Love and War (paperback, first published in 2003, 2nd edition 2006 in stock)
The first book in the Rose of York trilogy recounts Richard’s early life and his love affair with
Anne Neville.
WORTH, Sandra Crown of Destiny (paperback, 2006) The second book in the Rose of York
trilogy covers the period from 1476 to 1483, leading up to the death of Edward IV and Richard’s
acceptance of the throne.
If you would like to borrow books or papers from the Library you will find the contact details for
all the Librarians at the back of the Bulletin
43
Report on Society Events
Fotheringhay
Saturday 16 December 2006
The Society’s annual commemorative
events are not always reported regularly in the Bulletin but in our fiftieth
anniversary year it is perhaps appropriate to review the final event of
2006 and to share it with new and farflung members of the Society.
The 16th December was a cold
but clear day with a bright blue sky
that set off to perfection the charming
village of Fotheringhay. My companions and I came by car and arrived in
good time. After a week of rain we
decided it would be too muddy to
venture to the site of the castle so we
decided to bag a table in the village
hall for lunch and then have a prelunch drink in the Falcon. At the hall,
however, we were advised to visit the
church before the service as there was
a rather special sale of some fragments of fifteenth-century stained
glass that had been found in a secret
room under the porch.* Churchwarden Juliet Wilson had been very enterprising and arranged for some of the
Dr Phil Stone
thousands of fragments found to have
their edges encased in a silver-type metal, topped with a loop and ribbon and sold with a certificate of authenticity. We were all keen to acquire our very own piece of Fothers!
At 12.30, with the arrival of the coach and other Ricardians who had made their own way to
Fotheringhay, we assembled in the village hall, said ‘hello’ to old friends and as the tables filled
up no doubt new acquaintances were made. About sixty of us sat down for lunch prepared by Jo
Cooper. As Jo was trained by Alan Stewart, the former landlord of the aforesaid Falcon, the meal
was in his legendary style. Warming soup followed by a cold turkey and ham buffet with a great
selection of salads, then a choice of desserts, mince pies and coffee was soon consumed. The
noise level rose as the conviviality increased and all too soon it was time to walk down to the
church for the carol service.
The light was just beginning to fade as we approached the church and its outline against the
sky was spectacular. Once inside, we settled in our pew for the service. We were joined by another twenty or so members as well as local residents so the entire congregation and choir probably amounted to almost a hundred souls. The St Peter’s Singers were in fine voice, as ever, and
the opening hymn was O Come, O Come Emmanuel. The lessons were read by parishioners and
members of the Society – this year Ros Cummings, Bill Featherstone, Carolyn West and Phil
Stone. The service concluded with a gusty rendition of Adeste Fideles and all that remained of a
delightful day was to chat to fellow Ricardians before making our journey home. As we left the
44
church, night had fallen but the floodlights were switched on and I was pleased not to be driving
so I could turn around and look back on the church in all its evening glory.
Thanks to Phil Stone for organising the event, which went off very smoothly, and to the vicar
and churchwardens of Fotheringhay for making us so welcome. This was a fitting end to our fiftieth anniversary celebrations but the nice thing is that we will be doing it all over again in 2007.
Come and join us.
Judith Ridley
* The windows of Fotheringhay church have clear glass which replaced the ancient stained glass.
The old stained glass was discovered about ten years ago in pieces. Some of it was installed in
the windows of the room over the porch while some of the rest is being used to raise funds for the
church. If you would like to buy a piece of Fotheringhay glass please contact Phil Stone.
Gawsworth Hall
Gawsworth Hall, near Macclesfield, was visited by the Society last July during the Cheshire
weekend. It is a delightful black and white gem and, because it is still lived in by the family, it
has a cosy, homely feel, and is full of winding corridors and fascinating artefacts picked up from
here and there. It also has a lovely rose garden and open-air theatre, and is a popular wedding
venue. The original Norman house was rebuilt in 1480 and extensively re-modelling in 1701 and
altogether has had its fair share of changes and renovations, including a fire which burnt down
one wing which was never rebuilt.
There is a Ricardian connection in the shape of Sir Thomas Fitton who fought at the Battle of
Blore Heath on 23 September 1459. He obviously carried himself well during the battle as he
was knighted when all the fighting was over. Of the 66 Gawsworth men he took with him into
battle, 31 were killed.
Gawsworth Hall has a splendid collection of ancient fireplaces and timber framed walls, oak
beams and wainscoting and also some William Morris windows in its private chapel. The drawing room is almost unaltered since the mid sixteenth century and has been the principal living
room of the hall for five centuries – much of the glass is original and the timber is unrestored.
The Duke of Monmouth slept in the Hall Room as possibly did his father, King Charles II.
The Norfolk Branch Study Day: The House of Lancaster
This is an event which is a credit to the local branch and one that has become eagerly anticipated,
not only by East Anglian members but by those farther afield. Each year there is an excellent
line-up of speakers, mainly from the academic community, and this year was no exception. The
programme for the day made reference to the subject matter – ‘to devote a day to the House of
Lancaster may seem odd for a pro-Yorkist society. However, we feel there is much to be gained
from focusing on the Lancastrian dynasty, from its remarkable military achievements in France
through the divisive Wars of the Roses to perhaps the less than remarkable credentials of Henry
Tudor’. An accurate observation – we cannot study Richard in isolation.
The welcome was given by the branch chairman, David Austin, and before we knew it Dr
Mike Jones was on his feet talking about the battles of Agincourt and Verneuil in his own inimitable style, relaxed yet full of excitement and enthusiasm for his subject. Mike is a regular at
these events, having addressed six of the eight study days. Agincourt has received much attention
recently with several books on the subject (including one by Mike) so it was interesting to learn
of the lesser known battle fought by Henry V’s younger brother, John, Duke of Bedford.
The next speaker was Dr John Watts of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, whose paper ‘Henry
VI and the Wars of the Roses’ was based on his 1996 book Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship
(Cambridge). This was a well structured talk, full of fascinating information and John also speculated about the reasons why Richard ‘usurped’ the throne in 1483.
45
Dr John Watts
The notoriously difficult slot after lunch featured Dr Rosemary Horrox of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, but there was no danger of anyone not paying full attention to her talk on the
assimilation of the Lancastrians after 1461. Rosemary’s exhaustive knowledge of the gentry and
nobility of the period, which culminated in her book Richard III: A Study of Service published in
1989 (Cambridge), was evident, and led her to the conclusion that in general those who did settle
down and became loyal to the Yorkist regime generally stayed loyal through the vicissitudes of
Edward IV’s reign until 1483.
The final speaker was Professor Tony Pollard, who talked about the ultimate heir of the house
of Lancaster – Henry Tudor. Tony also made the rather interesting point that John of Gaunt,
Duke of Lancaster, frequently used the red rose as a device, thus supporting the justification for
the name that was later applied to the civil wars.
The event closed with a question-and-answer session chaired by Mike Jones. The debate was
lively and interesting, particularly around the panel’s thoughts about the motivation of the duke
of Buckingham in turning against King Richard in the autumn of 1483.
All in all it was a great day and well worth the long drive. The venue, the Assembly House in
Norwich, is delightful, and has been beautifully restored after a fire a few years ago. There is a
good restaurant and in the foyer there were two stalls selling attractive silver jewellery, which
allowed some members to indulge in a little retail therapy during the breaks. The branch deserve
a vote of thanks for putting on the event and in particular Anne-Marie Hayek for her faultless
organisation.
Wendy Moorhen
46
Future Society Events
Reminders and Late Bookings
Study Weekend, 15 – 17 April 2007
Please note there are still places available on the study weekend which will be held in York on 15
– 17 April. Full details and booking form were published in the Winter Bulletin. Unfortunately
Graham Turner is now unable to join us but Lynda Pidgeon will be examining that exciting chivalric aspect of warfare, tournaments. Booking form in the centre pages.
Wendy Moorhen
Brixworth and Grafton Regis, Saturday 28 April 2007
At the time of going to press, there were still spaces on the coach. If you think you would like to
join the trip please contact me as soon as possible. We leave from Embankment station at 9 am
sharp and aim to arrive at Brixworth by 11 am. We will have lunch in Stoke Bruerne (which is a
canal centre) and then on to Grafton Regis for our tour of the village at 2.30 pm.
Booking form in the centre pages. Tel: 01376 501984; or email: [email protected]
Marian Mitchell
Bookable Events
Scottish Branch - Spring Lecture, Sunday 15 April 2007
The ‘Christmas Lecture’ unfortunately had to be postponed due to difficulties with the venue
which is being provided by the army at Edinburgh Castle. It will now be taking place as the
‘Spring Lecture’.
The day of talks will cover the 1482 Invasion, with Dr Norman Macdougal as the keynote
speaker. Other speakers will include a logistics expert from the army, and a member of the Berwick History Society. On the Saturday evening there will be a dinner in the Royal Mile. All are
most welcome to attend.
For further details and booking please contact Philippa Langley. Tel 0131 3364669 e-mail:
[email protected]
A New Richard III Society Commemorative Plaque in Cromer,
Saturday 2 June 2007
On Saturday 2 June the Norfolk Branch plans to inaugurate a new Richard III Society plaque at
Cromer, on the north Norfolk coast. The plaque will commemorate the arrival of Edward IV and
his brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, at Cromer on 12 June 1471, on their return from exile in
the Low Countries. All members of the Society are warmly invited to attend this event.
Cromer was a well-known port in the fifteenth century, and we know the names of a number
of Cromer merchants and ship-owners (and their vessels) which had dealings with Sir John Howard in the 1460s. When Edward IV and his brother Richard were returning from exile in the Low
Countries at the beginning of March 1471, they made straight for the coast of loyal, Yorkist Norfolk, hoping to land at Cromer. The royal party arrived off Cromer on the evening of Tuesday 12
March. Whether the king and his brother actually landed, we do not know, but they had set sail
from Flushing ten days earlier, so they may have been glad to come on shore and stretch their
legs, and the most likely area for such a landing would have been the vicinity of Cromer’s ancient shipway, above which the Society’s new commemorative plaque will be erected. What is
47
certain is that the king sent two of his knights, Sir Gilbert Debenham and Sir Robert Chamberlayne, ashore to reconnoitre. Both men were members of the Mowbray, affinity, servants of John
Mowbray Duke of Norfolk, and friends of his cousin, Sir John Howard. They were hoping to
make contact either with the duke himself, or with John Howard, but they were to be disappointed, for John Mowbray had been detained in London by the earl of Warwick, and John Howard
had taken sanctuary at St John’s Abbey in Colchester. Debenham and Chamberlayne had to report to Edward IV that the Lancastrian earl of Oxford, backed by a strong force, was lying in wait
for them, and Edward IV set sail again to try his luck elsewhere.
The new plaque will be unveiled in the early afternoon of Saturday 2 June 2007, thus giving
members of the Society from other parts of the country, plenty of time to reach Cromer. Trains to
Cromer run regularly from Norwich station, and if visitors need help with planning their journey,
the Norfolk Branch will be glad to provide this. In addition to inaugurating the new plaque, we
plan also to visit parts of old Cromer, including the parish church, completed in 1437 – a landmark which Edward IV and his brother must have seen in 1471, whether or not they landed.
There will also, of course, be time for tea!
If you would like to join members of the Norfolk Branch in Cromer for this important occasion, please complete and return the form in the centre pages.
John Ashdown-Hill
Battle Abbey and Rye, Saturday 9 June 2007
As the English Heritage Handbook says ‘everyone knows at least one date in English history –
1066’.
The Battle of Hastings has parallels with the Battle of Bosworth in that each marked a turning point in English history and in both cases a great English king died in defence of his realm
against a foreign invader in a totally unthinkable defeat.
Our morning will be spent at Battle Abbey, which has a new visitor centre, opened in October
2006, with a ‘state-of-the-art interactive presentation’ bringing to life the famous battle. Entrance is free to English Heritage members; otherwise £6.30 per adult; £4.70 concessions. It will
be cheaper if we have 11 or more paying adults (i.e. not EH members). Please note: entrance fee
is not included in the cost of the trip.
We will spend the afternoon in the historic Cinque Port of Rye. This is a charming town of
antique shops, art galleries, bookshops and potteries, with half-timbered houses and cobbled
streets unchanged for hundreds of years. Rye has a twelfth-century church, and the Ypres Tower,
now housing a museum, still has cannon aimed out to sea to repel the French once again.
The coach (Kings of Colchester) will leave as usual from Embankment station at 9 am sharp.
The cost is £20 per person on the coach. Booking forms which can be found in the centre pages,
(together with cheque and sae) should be returned to Marian Mitchell, 20 Constance Close, Witham, Essex CM8 1XL. (Tel: 01376 501984; or email: [email protected].) by 9 May
2007.
Future Events
The Norfolk Branch Study Day, Saturday 10 November 2007
This year the theme is Crown and Sword and features Dr Michael K. Jones, Professor Tony Pollard, Matthew Bennett and Dr David Grummitt. The event will be held at The Assembly House,
Norwich.
Booking form will be in the summer Bulletin or ring Annmarie Hayek 01603 664021 e-mail
[email protected]
48
Branches and Groups Contacts
Branches
America
David M. Luitweiler, 1268 Wellington Drive, Victor, New York,
14564 United States of America. Tel:585-924-5022
[email protected]
Canada
Mrs Tracy Bryce, 5238 Woodhaven Drive, Burlington, Ontario, L7L
3T4, Canada. [email protected]
Devon & Cornwall
Mrs Anne E Painter, Yoredale, Trewithick Road, Breage, Helston,
Cornwall, TR13 9PZ. Tel. 01326-562023. [email protected]
Gloucester
Angela Iliff, 18 Friezewood Road, Ashton, Bristol, BS3 2AB
Tel: 0117-378-9237. [email protected]
Greater Manchester
Mrs Helen Ashburn, 36 Clumber Road, Gorton, Manchester, M18
7LZ. Tel: 0161-320-6157. [email protected]
Hull & District
Terence O’Brien, 2 Hutton Close, Hull, HU4 4LD. Tel: 01482445312
Lincolnshire
Mrs J T Townsend, Lindum House, Dry Doddington Road, Stubton,
Newark, Notts. NG23 5BX. Tel: 01636-626374.
[email protected]
London & Home Counties Miss E M Nokes, 4 Oakley Street, Chelsea, London SW3 5NN.
Tel: 01689-823569. [email protected]
Midlands-East
Mrs Sally Henshaw, 28 Lyncroft Leys, Scraptoft, Leicester, LE7
9UW. Tel: 0116-2433785. [email protected]
New South Wales
Julia Redlich, 53 Cammeray Towers, 55 Carter Street, New South
Wales, 2062, Australia. [email protected]
New Zealand
Robert Smith, ‘Wattle Downs’, Udy Street, Greytown, New Zealand.
[email protected]
Norfolk
Mrs Annmarie Hayek, 20 Rowington Road, Norwich, NR1 3RR.
Tel: [email protected]
Queensland
Jo Stewart, c/o PO Box 117, Paddington, Queensland, 4064,
Australia. [email protected]
Scotland
Philippa Stirling-Langley, 85 Barnton Park Avenue, Edinburgh, EH4
6HD. Tel: 0131 336 4669. [email protected]
South Australia
Mrs Sue Walladge, 5 Spencer Street, Cowandilla, South Australia,
5033, Australia. [email protected]
Thames Valley
Sally Empson, 42 Pewsey Vale, Forest Park, Bracknell, Berkshire `
RG12 9YA. [email protected]
Victoria
Hazel Hajdu, 4 Byron Street, Wattle Park, Victoria, 3128, Australia.
[email protected]
Western Australia
Helen Hardegen, 16 Paramatta Road, Doubleview, Western
Australia 6018, Australia. [email protected]
Worcestershire
Ms Val Sibley, Fieldgate House, 32 Grove Road, Dorridge, Solihull,
B93 0PJ. Tel: 01564 777329. [email protected]
Yorkshire
Mrs Habberjam, 10 Otley Old Road, Leeds LS16 6HD. Tel: 01132675069. [email protected]
49
Groups
Airedale
Bedfordshire/
Buckinghamshire
Bristol
Croydon
Cumbria
Dorset
Durham
Mid Anglia
Midlands-West
North East
Nottinghamshire
& Derbyshire
Sussex
West Surrey
Mrs Christine Symonds, 2 Whitaker Avenue, Bradford, BD2 3HL.
Tel: 01274 774680. [email protected]
Mrs D Paterson, 84 Kings Hedges, Hitchin, Herts, SG5 2QE.
Tel: 01462-649082. [email protected]
Keith Stenner, 96 Allerton Crescent, Whitchurch, Bristol, Tel:
01275-541512 (in affiliation with Gloucestershire Branch)
[email protected]
Miss Denise Price, 190 Roundwood Rd, LondonNW10. Tel. 0181451-7689
(in affiliation with London & Home Counties Branch)
John & Marjorie Smith, 26 Clifford Road, Penrith, Cumbria, CA11
8PP
Mrs Judy Ford, 10 Hengeld Place, Dorset Street, Blandford Forum,
Dorset, DT11 7RG. Tel: 01258-450403. [email protected]
Mrs E Watson, Oakcliffe House, 4 North Terrace, Aycliffe Village,
County Durham, DL5 6LG. Tel: 01325310361.
[email protected]
John Ashdown-Hill, 8 Thurlston Close, Colchester, Essex, CO4
3HF. Tel/fax: 01206-523267. [email protected]
Mrs Brenda Cox, 42 Whitemoor Drive, Shirley, Solihull, West Mid
lands, B90 4UL. [email protected]
Mrs J McLaren, 11 Sefton Avenue, Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE6 5QR Tel: 0191-265-3665). [email protected]
Mrs Anne Ayres, 7 Boots Yard, Huthwaite, Sutton-in-Ashfield,
Notts, NG17 2QW. [email protected]
Miss Josie Williams, 6 Goldstone Court, Windsor Close, Hove, East
Sussex, BN3 6WS. [email protected]
Rollo Crookshank, Old Willows, 41a Badshot Park, Farnham, Sur
rey, GU9 9JU. [email protected]
50
Branches and Groups
Devon and Cornwall Branch Report
2006 has been a successful year for the Devon and Cornwall Branch. All meetings have been
very well attended.
The year started in January with a buffet lunch provided by members of the Branch committee, and a Ricardian quiz. March saw the Vice-Chairman stepping in at the last moment due to
illness, and she gave a talk on Plymouth during the Civil War, not quite our period but very interesting. We had another buffet lunch at the May meeting which was followed by a very interesting
talk on ‘The Miracles of Henry VI’ by Lesley Boatwright. In July John Saunders (Branch Chairman) gave the talk cancelled in March on ‘The History of the Richard III Society’. This was illustrated with slides and we spent a happy time recognising various members of the Society over
several decades. We hold our annual Robert Hamblin Memorial Lecture in September and this
year it was given by Wendy Moorhen who spoke on William Hastings. This year we arranged
our Branch Trip to coincide with the Society’s Annual General Meeting in York. Several of us
stayed at York University, where we all had very nice modern en-suite rooms, but it became an
adventure when we had to walk about ½ mile to breakfast (at least we had a good appetite when
we arrived). We all enjoyed the pleasure of holding the AGM in such beautiful surroundings and
the dinner in the evening was delightful. We hold our Branch AGM in November and this year
the committee all agreed to serve for another year. A short talk was given after the AGM by
Branch member Jennie Powys-Lybbe on writing a Ricardian novel. The last event of the year
was the Christmas Lunch which was held in Plymouth this year (we like to move it around the
region and 2007 will see us in Exeter), all who attended had an enjoyable time.
As it is now January we are looking forward to another interesting year. The Branch is so
lucky that we are able to hold our meetings at ‘The Prysten House’ a medieval hall in central
Plymouth. Should any members wish to join us at any of our meetings they will be made very
welcome. We usually meet on the second Saturday of alternate months commencing in January;
all meetings start at noon.
Anne Painter
Gloucester Branch
Firstly, thanks to all the members who supported the Christmas Gathering at Beckford in December. This popular, and now regular, event featured an impressive range of medieval food and
drink to welcome in the festive season. Special thanks to Douglas and Dinah Coyne for their generosity in hosting the occasion. The Bristol Group made the ‘supplementary’ visit to the Castle
Inn at Castle Combe for a second pre-Christmas meal – purely, of course, to ensure the membership were fully prepared to face the excesses of Christmas itself.
Brian and Gwen Waters hosted and presented our first meeting of the New Year when we discussed ‘Medieval Imagery in Churches’. Brian and Gwen have an extensive knowledge of the
subject and an impressive collection of slides illustrating this extremely interesting and wide
ranging topic. Time constraints limited the scope of the presentation but there is clearly plenty of
additional material and interest to return to the subject in the future. In the meantime thank you,
Brian and Gwen, for such a great start to our programme.
We plan to include the usual ‘incidental’ events into our formal Branch Programme. This year
sees the five-yearly Pageant of the Golden Tree being staged in Bruges. The Branch has sent a
contingent to the last two productions and we plan to book again for this year. If you are interested in joining the party [25/26 August] please contact a Committee member as soon as possible.
Shakespeare in the Park! The Bristol Group will be attending A Midsummer Night’s Dream
51
staged in the grounds of Hazelbury Manor near Box in Wiltshire on the evening of Friday 13 July. Please contact a Committee member for full details.
As always we extend a very warm invitation for any Ricardians living in the area to attend
one of our meetings/events. You are welcome to come without having to make any commitment
to participate on a regular basis so why not come and meet us?
Forthcoming Branch/Group Events:
Saturday 3 March ‘The Medieval Bowman’ talk by Mike Jones [Bowmen of the Rose]
[Branch]
Friday 16 March
Short Papers [Bristol Group]
Saturday 14 April ‘Art and Ritual In The Yorkist Court’ talk by Stephen David [Branch]
Saturday 12 May ‘Finding the DNA of Richard III’ talk by John Ashdown-Hill [Branch]
Saturday 19 May
Medieval Tiverton. Leisurely day visiting medieval sites in the Tiverton
area [Bristol Group]
Saturday 2 June
Short Papers by members on a subject of their choice [Branch]
Saturday 7 July
Fairford Church: a field trip with conducted tour of this exceptional building
Venues for the above are as stated in the Branch Programmes.
Committee Contacts:
Keith Stenner 01275 541512
Angela Iliff 0117 3789237
Peter Brookes 01242 514469
Suzanne Doolan 01685 385818
Mike and Monica Donnelly 01242 238790
Keith Stenner
Lincolnshire Branch
It has been a very special year for the Lincolnshire Branch – a ‘Pearl of a Branch’ celebrating
thirty years. A celebration of special friendship, many delights, sumptuous feasts and memorable
journeys, both around Britain and abroad.
This year we have listened to some superb lectures, particularly those by Dr Ann Wroe and
John Ashdown-Hill, where we were all on the edge of our seats and, because there were so many
questions, nearly got thrown out of our meeting place. Not to be recommended.
Our thirty years were celebrated in time honoured fashion by the popping of champagne
corks when members and friends visited the Champagne Region of France. The arrival home of
this particular party has gone down in Branch annals under the title of ‘The Contraband Comes
Home’ – due to the amount of duty free unloaded from the coach luggage compartment. Say no
more! Other memorable trips this year were the Dumfries weekend, the one-day trip to Sheriff
Hutton and the visit to Cambridge and Hemingford Grey.
Our Zarosh Mugaseth Memorial Lecture was also notable this year. This lecture is fast becoming a popular event in Grantham and attendance has been steadily increasing each year. This
year we were once more privileged to have as our guest speaker Dr Jonathan Foyle, assistant curator at Hampton Court, art historian and a member of Time Team. Two of our special visitors on
this occasion were Dr Nick Barratt, the senior researcher for the BBC 2 series Who Do You Think
You Are?, and Guy de la Bedoyère, the expert on Roman history from Time Team. Dr Foyle
spoke on ‘Henry III’s Westminster Abbey’, and delivered a lively, well illustrated, fascinating
lecture.
The other special event in July was Jean Townsend’s birthday, a milestone for her, but that’s
52
all I’m saying. Jean wanted to celebrate it with the Branch and some of her friends she had got to
know through becoming interested in Richard III. So ninety invitations were issued and fifty-five
people sat down to ‘Jean’s Birthday Bash’, at the King’s Hotel, Grantham. It was quite an emotional occasion. Enough said!
The October meeting ended the celebrations with a lavish Medieval Banquet at the Angel and
Royal Hotel in Grantham. There was a special bed-and-breakfast offer with the Banquet, so we
filled the Hotel and provided some extra entertainments for the other guests. Most of the guests at
the Banquet were in medieval costume so it proved to be a very colourful occasion. The entertainment was by Hautbois, very fitting, because Ric and Helen provided the music at our first
medieval banquet. ‘Peter the Fool’ was the jester and Master of Ceremonies. His final act was to
don a pair of stilts in the King’s Room, the main dining room of the hotel and walk down the
main staircase of the hotel, much to the amazement of the other hotel guests. He then walked out
to the courtyard and performed numerous fire-eating acts. We were also honoured by the attendance of Rosemary Hawley Jarman, whose novel We Speak No Treason has just been republished
after thirty-five years. Rosemary has been a special friend of the Branch for a number of years, so
it was wonderful that she could be with us on such a special occasion.
We ended 2006 by Jean giving a talk on ‘Ricardian Myths’ for the November meeting and
then our Christmas Dinner at the King’s Hotel in Grantham, brought the year to a close.
There is a full programme of events up to September 2007, with outings, talks and charity
events, so watch this space.
Marian Moulton
Worcestershire Branch Report
On 11 November Richard Thompson, one of our newer members, bravely gave a lecture to a
well-attended meeting at Belbroughton Village Hall. His talk was entitled ‘Richard III and his
Inheritance’ and it was clear from the beginning that he had carried out a great deal of research in
preparation for his maiden lecture. He explored many aspects of the inheritance of the throne by
Richard III including the lineage of the Plantagenets, the wealth and power that kingship gave in
comparison to regency, comparing values with modern times. He also discussed the probability
and validity of their influence on Richard’s claim. The talk concluded with some thoughts on the
reasons for Richard’s failure to win the battle of Bosworth, despite his youthful generalship and
administrative acumen. Our speaker felt it was beyond one man without family or loyal support
to solve his problems. Following the lecture members were very keen to continue the discussion
and question time went on for over thirty minutes, a lively and interesting afternoon.
In December we enjoyed a seasonal bring-and-share tea at Upton Snodsbury Village Hall preceded by a really difficult quiz, thanks to Pam Benstead. There was great rivalry and hilarity as
we worked in teams of four delving deep into our collective knowledge. We all earned a respectable number of points and as no one had remembered to bring a prize we all won! As usual we
refrained from sending each other Christmas cards this year and donated the money instead towards the restoration fund at St Giles Church in Packwood, Warwickshire. After the meeting a
small group of us discussed a programme heard on BBC 2 at 3 pm on 30 November called Castle
in the Country. This programme came from the Isle of Bute and whilst looking at local archives a
letter was mentioned that purported to be written by Richard III to James Tyrell giving him free
access to the Tower of London for one night on 29 June. We wondered if the Society were aware
of this document? We decided to investigate further. [* See p.10]
January’s meeting saw us at a new venue in Hagley, St Saviour’s Church Hall, where we enjoyed an illustrated talk by Trevor Antill about ‘The Monarch’s Way’, a footpath that follows the
route Charles II is believed to have been taken when he escaped from the Battle of Worcester in
1651. It was not really of our period but it was historical, local and very interesting nonetheless.
Forthcoming Events
53
10 March
14 April
12 May
9 June
7 – 8 July
4 August
8 September
Our speaker will be Eric Greenwood whose subject will be ‘Medieval Monasteries’.
AGM at Claines Church Institute, Worcester. We will also have an opportunity to have a guided tour of this beautiful little medieval church.
Outdoor meetings with a visit to the Lost Medieval Village of Wormleighton and its church at Ashby St Ledger in Warwickshire.
Local outing to Greyfriars in Worcester city. This is a restored medieval
property with a fascinating history. Jane Tinkling will lead this outing,
which will also include a local church.
During this weekend we will be very busy manning our own promotional
stall in the main marquee at the Tewkesbury Festival re-enactment of the
Battle of Tewkesbury.
Saturday evening, meeting at 6 pm a guided walk around the historic village of Wolverley with Joan Ryder. The evening will conclude in a pub.
Trip to Boscobel House in Shropshire. Pat Parminter will lead this.
Our indoor meetings all begin at 2 pm unless otherwise stated. There is a charge of £2 including
refreshments. Outdoor events are arranged individually. Details on our branch website
www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk or contact our Secretary Val Sibley on 01564 777329.
We are always pleased to welcome friends and prospective members at any of the above
meetings.
Pat Parminter
Yorkshire Branch Report
On 30 December 2006 several Branch members and friends were at Sandal Castle to commemorate the battle of Wakefield. The event was organised by the Towton Battlefield Society, who
usually hold a day of re-enactments and living history at Sandal on the nearest Saturday to the
anniversary of the battle: this year, day and date coincided. Members of the TBS marched from
the castle to the Duke of York’s statue, where a wreath made by Pauline Pogmore was laid on
behalf of Yorkshire Branch. Afterwards various activities took place at the castle, but the ground
was so muddy and waterlogged that some had to be omitted. The Branch did good business, and
one of our newer members, Boris, attracted considerable attention. We feel sure he will be an asset to Yorkshire. Photos of this good-looking Russian are available from Pauline Pogmore, or
come and meet him at Towton.
As advised in the last Bulletin, our annual Spring Lecture is having to be postponed. The refurbishment of Leeds City Art Gallery, our usual venue, will probably not be completed until
May, so the Palm Sunday weekend will be marked locally only by a Branch presence at Towton
Hall on 1 April. More details about our lecture in due course.
Castle Bolton in Wensleydale, former home of a branch of the Scrope family, will be host to a
YAS Day School on Mary, Queen of Scots on Saturday 4 June. Further details from our Research Officer, Janet C Senior, at the YAS on 0113 245-7910.
Our local programme of meetings continues. Our Branch trip this year will be made in association with the Yorkshire Archaeological Society; the date is Saturday 22 September - so you
can’t say you didn’t have good notice! - and the destination Hornby castle. Currently in private
hands, in the fifteenth century the castle was the home of Sir John Conyers whose large family
(he had 23 siblings) had considerable influence in Richmondshire, holding the stewardship of the
Lordship of Middleham and having a long record of service to the Nevilles. Sir John was almost
certainly on Richard III’s ducal council before 1483, and was created a Knight of the Body to the
King. In St Mary’s church at Hornby (which we shall also visit) may be seen the memorial brass
of Thomas Mountford, Esquire, who was related to both the Conyers and Strangways families, as
well as some medieval alabasters. The cost of the day will be £25 to members of the Richard III
54
Society or the YAS, and £30 to the general public; this includes an introductory talk on Hornby
and also a ‘proper’ lunch at a local hostelry.
May I remind subscribers to our magazine Blanc Sanglier that subs are now due and should
be paid to our Treasurer Christine Symonds as usual.
Angela Moreton
West Surrey Group
I recently visited my son and his family in Perth, Western Australia, so took the opportunity to
contact Carole Carson of the Western Australian Branch. Soon after arriving in Perth, I joined
her and some of our other Western Australian members for breakfast at the ‘Witches’ Cauldron’,
a popular restaurant in Subiaco, a short walk from my son’s home.
I arrived, brandishing my most recent copy of the Bulletin as a means of identification, and
seven Ricardians sat down to enjoy a rather sumptuous breakfast. This is a very popular idea in
Australia, and a lot of social and business meetings take place over various forms of bacon and
eggs, etc.
The Western Australian branch meet monthly and do much the same as we do here, with discussions, lectures, investigations and medieval interests. One lady, Yvonne Mulder, is a weaver,
and not only makes beautiful fabrics but also creates the costumes that members wear for Ricardian occasions. There is no lack of enthusiasm ‘down under’.
It was a very enjoyable morning and we parted as good friends, with hopefully an opportunity
for me to return their hospitality if and when any of them visit England. Carole is hoping to do so
in 2007, and I know that the West Surrey group will be as delighted to make her welcome as the
Western Australian branch made me.
I was unable to meet the branch’s valued ‘honorary’ member John Saunders, but hopefully he
will be coming to talk to the West Surrey group in the not-too-distant future.
Below is a photo taken in the ‘Witches’ Cauldron’.
Renée Barlow
From left: Helen Hardegen, Louise Carson, Yvonne Mulder, Carole
Carson, yours truly, Pat Masters (president) and Pat Garlick.
55
Calendar
We run a calendar of all forthcoming events: if you are aware of any events of Ricardian interest, whether organised by the Society - Committee, Visits Committee, Research Committee,
Branches/Groups - or by others, please let Lynda Pidgeon have full details, in sufficient time for
entry. The calendar will also be run on the website.
Date
2007
17 March
Events
Originator
Requiem Mass for King Richard and Queen Anne,
at St. Etheldreda’s church, Ely Place and wreathlaying at the queen’s tomb in Westminster Abbey
J Ashdown-Hill
13 - 15 April
Australasian Convention, Wellington area, New
Zealand e-mail: [email protected]
13 –15 April
Study Weekend in York
Research Officer
15 April
Scottish Branch Spring Lecture: The 1482 Invasion
Scottish Branch
28 April
Brixworth and Grafton Regis
Visits Committee
2 June
Cromer Commemorative Plaque
Norfolk Branch
9 June
Visit to Battle Abbey and Rye or Hastings
Visits Committee
6-9 July
Norfolk Weekend Visit based at King’s Lynn
Visits Committee
19 August
Bosworth Commemoration
Visits Committee
25 August
Commemoration of Bosworth at St John’s Abbey
Colchester
J Ashdown-Hill
(see page 5)
8 September
Follow up visit to Romney Marsh Trust
churches: Lydd and New Romney.
Visits Committee
29 September
Society AGM
Secretary
10 November
Norfolk Branch Study Day: Crown and Sword
Norfolk Branch
15 or 16 December Fotheringhay: Lunch followed by Nine Lessons
and Carols. Date to be confirmed
2008
17 March
Annual Requiem Mass, Clare Priory, Suffolk
Fotheringhay
Co-ordinator
April
Triennial Conference
Research Officer
Early May
Visit to Provence
Visits Committee
56
J Ashdown-Hill