Showing posts with label Richard III. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard III. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Richard III should be buried with his wife and son in York!


The Tudors went too far in their desecration of Richard III: when one learns that he governed York well for several years, not in the view of the court but of the people who lived in York, that he enacted bail for the poor, that he was, in fact, known for his honesty and sincere religious faith. His brother treasured him as his most loyal subject and Richard NEVER let Edward IV down.
Many people believe that Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, killed the Princes, as Lord High Constable and Governor of the Tower, he had actual physical control of the Tower of London where the Princes were staying. People forget that the Tower also included a royal residence.
Henry Stafford was in fact of Royal Blood himself,  any chance he had to become King depended on their assassination of Edward V and his brother Richard as well as the overthrow of Richard and the neutralizing of Henry Tudor.

 Henry's father, Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, supported the House of Lancaster in the initial phase of the Wars of the Roses. He died in 1458 of wounds after First Battle of St Albans, and his paternal grandfather, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, another leading Lancastrian, was killed at the Battle of Northampton (10 July 1460). After his grandfather's death, Henry was recognized as Duke of Buckingham. The new Duke eventually became a ward of Queen Elizabeth Woodville, consort of Edward IV of England. Sometime before the time of her coronation in May 1465 he was married to her sister Catherine Woodville, Duchess of Buckingham and Bedford (b.1458). Both parties were children at the time; they were carried on squires' shoulders at the coronation ceremony and were reared in the queen's household together.

Buckingham was the son of Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford. Four of Buckingham's first and second cousins became King of England, and two of his second cousins became Queen consorts:

•Edward IV and his brother Richard III were Buckingham's first cousins once removed. Buckingham's father Humphrey, Earl Stafford, was son of Lady Anne Neville (c. 1411–1480). Anne's sister Lady Cecily, Duchess of York was the mother of Edward IV and Richard III. Edward's son Edward V was thus Buckingham's second cousin, as was the younger Edward's sister Elizabeth of York, later wife and Queen consort of Henry VII of England.

•Henry Tudor, later King Henry VII was Buckingham's second cousin. Buckingham's mother was Lady Margaret Beaufort (c. 1427–1474), daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Margaret's first cousin, also named Margaret Beaufort (1443–1509) was the mother of Henry VII, the latter Margaret being the daughter of 1st Duke of Somerset.

•Lady Anne Neville, in line to become Queen as the wife of Lancastrian Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales, eventually did become Queen as the wife of Richard III of England. Her paternal grandfather Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury was the brother of Buckingham's paternal grandmother (also named Anne Neville), making Buckingham the Queen's second cousin.
Wikipedia


He certainly had motive. He was also a man, like the Stanleys(who fought for Henry Tudor for money, not for England) of no morals or character. Buckingham would do anything which profited him and not do anything which didn't. Buckingham was in contact with Lancastrian and Tudor Ally Bishop Morton(for which there is evidence that Thomas More's Richard III, was in fact written by the Bishop and copied by More, which would explain why Thomas More never published it). Bishop Morton was in contact with Henry Tudor, though their interests might diverge later, the assassination of Edward V and Richard of York profited both men. What was Richard to do if Buckingham killed the Princes? There was nothing he could do. Regardless of who actually committed the murder, he would be blamed for it.
Read Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, it asks the questions which were never asked under the Tudors, but must be asked. Why did Henry VII never accuse Richard of their murder or use it as justification for his own rebellion. Why did he wait 20 years to execute the actual assassin?
Richard was the bravest man on the battlefield of Bosworth, all sources are in agreement on this fact. Upon seeing the treachery of the Stanleys, for which they were well paid(by Henry Tudor), Richard personally charged Henry Tudor and his mercenary bodyguard of 200. Cutting an incredible swathe through this phalanx, he was cut down within 8 feet of Henry Tudor. His brother Edward IV was right, he was the bravest man and and among the finest soldiers in England.



Henry Tudor had Richard stripped naked and had his dead body paraded through town. His body was was also subjected to mutilation. No honorable soldier deserves that, certainly none who fought as bravely as Richard did.
It doesn't surprise me that Prime Minister Cameron is looking for a tourist attraction for Liecester. People forget that Henry VIII's desecration of Religious houses, destroyed Richard's resting place, but also desecrated Alfred the Great's grave and body, which is lost to history.
Richard should be buried at York with his wife and his son. Honor demands it.I have one other conundrum which no one has mentioned, from Wikipedia concerning the burial of Mary of York, one of Edward IV's children.
"Mary died at Greenwich on 23 May 1482, and was buried in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. In 1789, workmen carrying out repairs in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, rediscovered and accidentally broke into the vault of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, discovering in the process what appeared to be a small adjoining vault. This vault was found to contain the coffins of two mysterious, unidentified children. However, no inspection or examination was carried out and the tomb was resealed and the tomb was inscribed with the names of two of Edward IV's children George, 1st Duke of Bedford died at the age of 2 & Mary of York died age 14 that had predeceased the King. [16] During the excavation for the royal tomb house for King George III under the Wolsey tomb-house in 1810-1813 two lead coffins clearly labelled as George Plantagenet & Mary Plantagenet were discovered and moved into the adjoining vault of Edward IV's but at the time no effort was made to identify the two lead coffins already in the vault. [17] The coffin of Mary was opened, the beautiful girl of fifteen who had died a year before her father; a shock of her pale gold hair had insinuated itself through the chinks of the coffin; the eyes were pale blue and open, but turned to dust however soon after the admission of air.

Wikipedia

 I once got into a ferocious argument with a British Academic about Julius Caesar and the Gaullic Wars. The argument was whether Caesar acted defensively or were his actions a racist genocide. Rome had been conquered by the Gauls/Celts in 387 BC. They wreaked incredible carnage and slaughter throughout Italy. During the Consulship of Marius, Julius Caesar's Uncle, in 113-101 BC, the Romans fought a horrific war on their northern border with Gaul.  Two tribes, the Teutones and Cimbri, marched towards Rome. They numbered over a half million, including an army of 250,000 ferocious warriors. Even Roman Historians considered the Gauls incredibly ferocious warriors, certainly a match for the Romans and their Legions. Historians now think crop failures in Western and Northern Europe caused this huge migration to southern Europe. Roman General after Roman General was sent to fight the invaders. Each in its turn was defeated by this invading hoard. Finally, the Roman Senate turned to General Marius, who was fighting and winning a war in Africa. It took ten years, with between 150,000-180,000 Roman Dead, before the invasion was crushed but northern Italy was rendered a wasteland.

Roman mothers would frighten their children into being good Romans, by telling them that the Gauls/Celts would come back if they didn't. This is the world that in which Julius Caesar lived and died.

I argued that Oliver Cromwell is regarded in Ireland as the English Hitler. His slaughter of innocent civilians, including children and babies, at Drogheda shows that he believed in situational ethics. Oliver Cromwell was the least Christian General the English ever produced----and a War Criminal too.  He exterminated 1/3 of the Irish population out of pure religious hatred and a desire to persecute, torture and murder. It has struck many people as strange when people call him a believer in Freedom and hero. Ireland was no threat to England, but the English stole it and it was theirs. 

Richard governed well and justly. He was not avaricious and cruel, as both Henry Tudor(VII) and Henry VIII were. I always remember Katherine Howard running and screaming trying to reach Henry and plead her defense, but being prevented by Cromwell and Archbishop Cramner.

Richard's Council of the North, derived from his ducal council, greatly improved conditions for Northern England, as commoners of that region were formerly without any substantial economic activity independent of London. Its descendant position was Secretary of State for the Northern Department.
In December 1483, Richard instituted what later became known as the Court of Requests, a court to which poor people who could not afford legal representation could apply for their grievances to be heard. He also introduced bail in January 1484, to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during that time.
 
If Richard was responsible for killing the Princes in the Tower, the murders may have caused Buckingham to change sides. On the other hand, Buckingham himself had motivation to kill the Princes, having a claim of his own to the throne equivalent to that of Henry Tudor, depending on one's view of the legitimacy of the Beaufort line. According to a manuscript discovered in the early 1980s in the College of Arms collection, the Princes were murdered "be [by] the vise" of the Duke of Buckingham. There is some argument over whether "vise" means "advice" or "devise"(actions of). According to this perspective, if Buckingham killed the Princes and blamed Richard, he could form a rebellion, putting the throne into play with only Henry Tudor as a rival. Indeed, he was one of the leaders of a rebellion, ostensibly in favour of Henry Tudor, in October 1483. However, the rebellion was quickly crushed and Buckingham executed. Henry Tudor would succeed in defeating Richard III two years later.
Wikipedia

Either way you interpret the word "vise", the word implies that Henry Stafford, The Duke of Buckingham, was involved in the murder; if the first construction as a co-conspirator, the second that it was his act for his own purposes.  Remember that this is a contemporaneous document, written by someone who had intimate knowledge of events. It was discovered in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University. One can just imagine the chuckle that Josephine Tey(Elizabeth MacIntosh) and her Detective Alan Grant of Scotland Yard would have with that information.

Ask the people of York, they knew Richard and wept when he died.
He should be buried in York, for the people of York, for his wife and for his son. And because it is right: Right for Right, Might For Right!

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Truth is the Daughter of Time, the real Richard III

Richard III


Richard III outlaws bribery



…the king will it to be ordained, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, of this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that his subjects, and the commonality of this his realm, from henceforth in no wise be charged by no such charge, exaction or imposition, called a benevolence, nor by such like charge; and that no such extractions, called benevolences, before this time taken, be taken…of any of his subjects of this realm hereafter… - Statutes of the Realm, 1484



After Richard III's death, the Tudors became infamous for their spending, or in Henry VII's case, miserliness, both of which were predicated on extortion, theft and bribery.



Richard on the Battlefield

"His courage also high and fierce, which failed him not in the very death". - Polydor Vergil, Historian, 1520

"Such was his renown in warfare, that when ever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his generalship". - Dominic Mancini, 1483

"In his small body the greatest valor held sway". - Archibald Whitelaw, 1484

"For in the thick of the fight, and not in the act of flight, King Richard fell in the field, struck by many mortal wounds, as a bold and most valiant prince". - Croyland Chronicle Continuator, 1486

"King Richard alone was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies". - Polydor Vergil



A Good King is missed by his subjects

In the minutes of the City of York 1485:

…it was shown by divers persons, especially by John Sponer sent unto the field of Redmoor to bring tidings from the same to the city, that King Richard, late lawfully reigning over us, was…piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city…



…as a singularly thoughtful and enlightened legislator, who brought to his task a profound knowledge of the nature of contemporary problems, and an enthusiastic determination to solve them in the best possible way, in the interests of every class of his subjects…H.G. Hanbury, 1962

"The good reputation of his private life and public activities powerfully attracted the esteem of strangers". - Dominic Mancini, Report, 1483

"On my trouth I lykyd never the condicions of ony prince so wel as his; God hathe sent hym to us for the wele of all..."
Thomas Langton - Bishop of St. David's, Letter to a friend 1483

"If we look for prudence in fostering peace and waging war, who shall we judge his equal?" - Pietro Carmeliano,Poet, 1484



In His Own Words

"...justly and duly administer the laws without delay or favor, (dispensing justice) indifferently to every person, as well as to poor as to rich". - Richard III - Address at Westminster, 1483



St. Thomas More

St. Thomas More wrote a history of Richard III, which he never published. Even when it might have aided him in his defense against charges of Treason brought by Thomas Cromwell, Thomas More's successor as Chancellor of England. These charges are now known to have been based on the perjury of Richard Rich who was acting at the direction of Thomas Cromwell the Lord Chancellor and Thomas Cramner the Archbishop of Canterbury, who were acting at the behest of King Henry VIII. For his perjury, Richard Rich was to succeed Cromwell and become Lord Chancellor.

Richard Rich had been a Apprentice to Thomas More when Lord Chancellor. Knowing a certain lack of ethics and character on Richard's part, More suggested that Richard Rich become a Teacher, best rendered by Robert Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons":



Thomas More to Richard Rich, "Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one."

"If I was," replies Rich, "who would know it?"
Thomas More, "You, your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public that."

Why did St. Thomas More never publish his history of Richard III?

Some have speculated that Thomas More became disenchanted with what he had been taught about Richard as a child. He was an apprentice in Cardinal Morton's household as a boy of twelve. Cardinal Morton was one of Richard III's enemies, a firm supporter of the Tudors. The only history he knew of those events came from this and other Tudor partisans. For over twenty years the manuscript lay unpublished among More's papers, Thomas More having made the choice not publish it. It was until long after his death that the Tudor Court received a copy of the manuscript. They then published it and it became the foundation for Shakespeare's Richard III.

Always remember that the extant portraits of Richard III have been retouched by Tudor Partisans to show a "hunchback", which apparently is made out of whole cloth, if the Countess of Desmond is to be believed:

Richard was the handsomest man in the room except his brother Edward, and was well made. - Countess of Desmond describing dancing with Richard, Reported by Horace Walpole, 1768

"...three fingers taller than myself...also much more lean; he had delicate arms and legs, also a great heart..." - Nicholas von Poppelau, Diary,1484

One aspect, which may have troubled Thomas, was that in all the charges that Henry Tudor brought against Richard III, not once did he accuse him of killing his twelve-year-old nephew, King Edward V and his ten-year-old brother, Richard. When Parliament declared Edward illegitimate and gave the crown to Richard, Edward was no longer a threat to Richard. But he was a threat to Henry Tudor(VII), because even if he overthrew Richard, that would put Edward V on the throne again, not Henry. Henry's whole rationale for becoming King was that Richard III usurped the Throne. And an odd coincidence, The Lord of the Tower of London in Richard's reign was Henry Stafford, The Duke of Buckingham. Henry was a relative of both the houses of Lancaster and York and himself stood in line for the crown. But he had the same problem Henry Tudor had. Overthrowing Richard would not make him King, but overthrowing Richard and killing Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York could. Many have speculated as to whether Henry Tudor and Duke of Buckingham conspired together, or acted independently, but both are the main suspects in killing the Princes because they were the only ones who gained by their murder.

One of the main tenets in solving crimes is to first check to see who benefits from the crime, because they are always your best suspect. Richard III gained nothing from the death of Edward V and Richard Duke of York, but Henry Tudor and Henry Stafford did, because they became heirs to the throne on Richard's death....



All historians agree on one point, Richard III was the bravest man on the field at Bosworth. While Henry Tudor cowered behind a bodyguard of a hundred, Richard fought alone, bravely and without fear. At the end of the battle, when he knew the battle was lost(after the treachery of the Stanleys), Richard charged towards Henry, cutting a swathe through his host, only cut down in the last twenty feet of his quarry.

Henry ordered Richard's body stripped naked, then dragged behind a horse, ripped apart by rocks, thickets and bushes. That is not the way for the bravest man in a battle to be treated in death.