Messages

16

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: July 18, 2013, 02:52:56 PM »

Well Shakespeare's villain is certainly a memorable character - i explained myself badly

Had it not been for the death or disappearance of the Prince's, the upsurge of interest in Richard in the 20th Century due to certain books and the PMK biography (with its numerous errors) that in turn sparked a wider interest in Richard then a King who reigned for such a short period would be remembered as a bit of a footnote.

I would be very wary of surveys of public opinion they generally are based on pretty low sampling and those people who vent or sign petitions are usually not the majority just a very vocal group.
The petitions over the burial naturally show strong favour to the idea of a York burial in part because there has been a lot of encouragement of the idea by MPs, council's , local historians and Richard III fans shall we say. Many think it is just more fitting some believe it was his wish and others just want their local area to win the row.

We still know very little about Richard's day to day life in his youth - his early childhood was probably spent with his mother at the many numerous York households (mainly Fotheringhay) - in the early 1460s he was certainly housed in London with his brother George - his wardship or care if you like was granted to the Kingmaker in the early 60s but Warwick had numerous homes across England and medieval nobility moved around their various assets a great deal - Richard certainly spent time in the north in Warwicks household but to say that Middleham was his childhood home as many claim is a stretch - by the time he was technically in Warwick's care he was already a teenager.
In the 1470s after his marriage - his division of the Warwick estates gained him significant assets in the north - and Edward naturally decided to make him the key political player in the north but he still went to war with the King in France etc. His main households were established in those northern bases.
Given the patronage he held it was only natural that local minor landlords, towns and cities looked to him as the best connected noble in the area for favours, help and patronage and like many nobles of the day he was happy to dispense it in return for local loyalty etc.

On his accession or usurpation which ever you prefer he was heavily reliant on his northern allies to hold the crown - his brother's household had been largely made up of people from the Midlands and South who resented Richard and his northern cohorts - so his continuing patr4onage to city's like York is not suprising - hence the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales in York etc.
As to his burial choice well York may have been what he intended but his chantry endowments could also have just been piety and generosity to a city that he believed was loyal to him - He buried his wife in Westminster Abbey not York.

A city that in the 1450s had been unswervignly Lancastrian in its loyalties.

I think to be honest you can argue for quite a few places - Middleham where he certainly spent a lot of time, Fotheringhay where he was most likely brought up, St George's at Windsor where his brother Edward IV was buried, or Westminster with his wife (which to be honest is where i think he shoudl have been put) as well as Leicester where he died or York Minster.

To be fair general archeaological practice is to bury an excavated body as near the original resting place as possible hence the decision by the universtiy to opt for the cathedral.
York Minster has made it catagorically clear that they are not intersted in the row and have no desire to have him buried there.
With reference publicity and tourism - given the level of interest wherever his remains end up i think it will pull in people the RII Society will be running trips from all over the world for a start and of course the reason Leicester is so keen  they will also spend cash and viist the museum to Richard the city is now planning. It has never really been about Richard for his many good and bad qualities but about the revenue and unlike York which already pulls in millions of visitors a year Leicester could do with it more. Lol.

quote author=Janet  Ashton link=topic=17261.msg525752#msg525752 date=1373406049]

I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.

He is one of the better-known Kings of England, and not just through Shakespeare's portrayal. It's inevitable that there would be a (huge) surge in interest when his remains were found, but the fact that they have been says in itself that people cared and were interested. No-one is fighting to have James II rediscovered as far as I know...:-)

I do know a lot of people both in York and also elsewhere around the county, country and world who have strong views on the burial issue  - 80% in favour of York, the city to which he showed particular favour and treated as his "capital" for most of his adult life, and whose Minster he knew well. As it's not about what anyone in York or Leicester or anywhere else personally wants, surely? - or even about tourism (I wonder how many people visit a town to see a grave? don't the assorted museums to him and castles he lived in really have more draw?) rather, a question of finding an appropriate burial place for someone - else, why dig them up? The issue of Good or Bad doesn't even enter into it - we don't subject the other Kings of England to such an acid test; some of the worst tyrants in history made sure they had the most splendid grave (though there's a certain poetic justice in the spectacle of William the Conqueror bursting as he was stuffed into his tiny coffin!).


[/quote]

17

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Catherine, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

« on: July 14, 2013, 10:19:44 AM »

Both the Earldom of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus are titles William was granted along with the Dukedom of Cambridge - when in Scotland or N Ireland he uses the title that relate to those countries - as his father does (Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland rather than Prince of Wales).

18

The Windsors / Re: Prince William and Catherine, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

« on: July 09, 2013, 02:01:36 PM »

In the case of Viscount Severn he is using the title by courtesy as the son of any other British Earl would do. He is not a peer himself.
Were he a HRH - custom would dictate that he would not use the courtesy title as his HRH would be his own style and ranks higher so does not need to use a courtesy title  - HRH Prince James of Wessex.
The children of Royal Duke's who are the grandchildren (or great grandchildren which will only apply to the Cambridge's children) of a sovereign are usually HRH and take their style from their father's peerage unless they bear a title in their own right
So Edward VIII during his great grandmother's reign was Prince Edward of York, during his grandfathers Prince Edward of Wales, during his father's HRH The Prince of Wales.
The of Wales, or of Cambridge, or of York is just easier than HRH, Prince... of Great Britain and Northern Ireland etc - it also easily identifies whose offspring they are.
Under the George V letters patent only the eldest grandson of the Prince of Wales is entitled to the HRH style - the other issue would be styled as those of a Duke.
The Queen was making sure that all the Cambridge's children born during her lifetime will get the style they would eventually gain in later life as first the grandchildren and then the children of a reigning sovereign.

19

The Final Chapter / Re: George V

« on: July 08, 2013, 02:13:34 PM »

I think that to be fair George V's actions are entirley understandable and are not that surprising.
During the First World War George V came under increased scrutiny particularly over his 'foreign' origins although to be fair he was essentially a very English country gentleman, although a bit of a martinet, at heart.
He was also hide bound by the constitutional nature of his crown, something that both Wilhelm and Nicholas mocked, which limited what action he could take.
He was also facing an essentially collapsing Russian position and a government that hastily offered asylum largely to try and keep the provisional government onside in the war.
A government that didn't really consider the long-term impact on the King's position of having his cousin in the country.
Nicholas' reputation in the west had never been particularly good and to the King, who actually had pretty good relations with his left leaning government's in his later reign, housing Nicholas the Bloody would have been a public relations disaster.
George's first duty was the survival of his own country and his own crown not rescuing monarch's who through their own foolishness had found themselves in appalling circumstances.
Nicholas was advised on signing the abdication to leave the country - his mother was told that he should go immediately abroad - he returned to his wife and children perhaps we can understand that but then he also ignored offers to try and get the children out.
By the time the British asylym offer was made (before it was withdrawn at the request of the King) the Petrograd government was already asking that the offer be withdrawn given the Soviet had demanded assurances that the former Tsar would not be allowed to leave.
The window of escape closed before it really opened.
George's ability after that to do anything was pretty hampered as Nicholas really ceased to have any political importance to the British after the fall of the provisional government. George couldn't as many people seem to think simply order his secret service or government to act and nor should he have done.

George V is often the villain of the piece but Nicholas had other cousins including those a damn site nearer who equally did very little to help.
If as you say asylum offer had survived - then how do you get them out - without the Soviet rising against the provisional government whose survival the allies were desperate to ensure - where do they go to - the obvious is Finland then Sweden/Norway/Denmark - but how and what risk of Nicholas in crossing Finland given the only Romanov who was vaguely popular with the Finns was his mother.
When Kerensky fearing for their safety sent them deeper into Russia rather than nearer a friendly border - how is that helping to save them rather than his own crumbling and inept government?

  I think George V does indeed bear some blame, if not specifically for the deaths of the Imperial Family, then certainly for the decision not to grant them asylum in England, which asylum would have saved their lives.

History does not generally blame Lloyd George or Parliament for this decision. This is not really disputed even by critics of Lloyd George. George V was not exactly a poor chimneysweep in a mattter as vital as the fate of his own relatives and of what had been a ruling family until a few weeks previously. There is also the evidence of his private secretary (Stanfordham ?) , who wrote of George V's role.

Further confirmation of George V's  responsibility may be inferred  from the efforts that were made to discourage and pressure his ambassador to Russia , Buchanan   not to speak or write publicly about the matter , which would haver made the King look self-centered, callous, and bad.

That the Romanovs were indeed in danger can pretty much be inferred from the very fact that desperate efforts were being made to get them out of Russia. The Provisional Government, especially Pavel Miliukov,  knew this and acted accordingly. It wasn't a question of finding the IF a preferred new  residence, but rather  of finding them asylum, i.e., of  saving their lives.   


As acknowledged by earlier posters, the St. Petersburg Soviet was intensely hostile to both Nicholas and Alexandra; in fact some delegates openly demanded his execution. The danger to the IF was clear. Even before the Bolsheviks seized power in October of 1917 the SRs's and other left extremists in the Soviet were known proponents of terror ,including against the Romanovs. They had a bad record for it in the previous fifteen years.

 And yes, getting the IF to safety in England would have been difficult. But it was by no means impossible. All the more reason for getting the approval of and some zeal shown by the British monarch as well as  by the British government for the move. After George V backed away, the window of opportunity was closed and the IF's options were virtually nonexistent and their fate effectively sealed.

Obviously George V didn't know for cetain that the Romanovs ,his cousins, would be executed . But the fact is he could have and should have known that they were in serious danger. The resort of Russian revolutionaries to murder of high government officials and of a Romanov Emperor  and a Romanov grand duke was a matter of record. And these were while Romanovs occupied the Russian throne. With the entire Romanov family imprisoned just  fifteen miles away from the St. Petersburg Soviet, how could George V not have appreciated the peril and the consequent imperative to offer timely succor?

20

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: July 08, 2013, 01:28:24 PM »

I doubt very much the legal challenge has much of a chance but hey might be surprised - as someone who actually lives in York - let Leicester have the tourists we get enough already lol.
To be honest the whole thing is a bit daft no-one was that bothered about him before all this..... he is rather a footnote in history.

21

The Tudors / Re: The White Queen

« on: July 01, 2013, 04:24:43 AM »

I am a huge fan of Elizabeth Wydeville and surprised myself by enjoying this - having read the books the later episodes will probably annoy me more.
On the witchcraft issue as has been pointed out the general shock of Edward's marriage and the fact the St Pol's (Elizabeth's maternal family) claimed descent from Mesaline was indeed why she and her mother were both accused of witchcraft.
I think dramatic licence on that is okay.
I have met Philippa Gregory who is a great speaker and very entertaining and ironically I am more inclined to think with her Wars of the Roses books she has more licence for imagination than with the tudor books as there is far less historical evidence for the period in terms of letters and state papers etc.
I think it has been well done and has a terriifc cast particularly Janet McTeer as Jacquetta Wydevillle and Caroline Goodall as the Duchess of York.
In terms of the Wydeville children i think the ages are actually pretty close to reality - i spent a lot of time looking at their ages, the births of their first children etc and based on the ages we know (Elizabeth and her eldest brother) when they married etc i think the girls were mostly teenagers downwards. At least the ones they show.

22

The Windsors / Re: Prince Henry/Prince Harry of Wales

« on: June 13, 2013, 12:00:27 PM »

I suspect it will be similar to the situation of the Queen's younger sons - all of them had to wait for marriage.
I suspect the view being that being Prince Andrew and Prince Edward was perfectly ok for them until that point.
In fact one of the reasons for bestowing peerages on them at their marriages was to make it easier to correctly address their wives.
A way of avoiding the Diana issue - she technically was of course HRH The Princess of Wales or Princess Charles but in common parlance was styled in the press and almost everywhere as Princess Diana.
Granting Edward and Andrew peerages on marriage avoided that and neither Sarah or Sophie have been styled incorrectly as a result.
It also avoids the awkward situation given the innacuracy and lack of intelligence of many reporters of having them styled Princess Andrew or Princess Edward.
I am sure Harry will be fine simply being Prince Harry until he gets married if he does.

23

The Windsors / Re: Government starts effort to change succession law

« on: April 26, 2013, 12:14:35 PM »

A sensible decision reference the replacement of the RMA (which quite frankly was outrageous) as to the Catholic issue - a sensible fudge in my opinion that sticks with the basic premise of the Glorious Revolution and susbequent legislation.

24

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: April 03, 2013, 02:43:56 PM »

Personally I was surpised Leicester Cathedral was so vocal about what it wanted for the tomb given the ongoing row over whether it should be there at all.
To be fair the Cathedral is correct that recent royal memorials are plain slabs (to be fair that is in part because recent monarchs are buried at St George's Windsor which is not exactly awash with room for elaborate tombs) it is also more in keeping with the more modern view of memorial stones in general.
I am not over keen on any kind of 'mock' 15th century imagined style tomb as like the one that has been proposed which is not reallly in keeping with the cathedral.
As to the licence row it rumbles on as a group of descendants of Richard's siblings have now threatened a judicial review (which in England means a judge examines all the details relating to the decision in this case the licence and rules whether it has been fair to all parties etc)
The university has pointed out in response that the relatives are so distantly related and so much time has passed since the death of Richard III they were under no obligation to consult them over the burial plans.
It is also worth pointing out that some of the first calls for burial in York came from councillors in the city on the day the authority announced a rise in tax,cuts in services and job losses (a good day to bury bad news perhaps)

25

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: February 21, 2013, 01:03:51 PM »

Just to clarify i was pointing out that even if you beleived Edward IV not to be the son of Richard Duke of York then his descendants have Plantagenet connections through his wife Elizabeth Woodville.

As has been pointed out through her grandmother Margaret de Baux - Elizabeth was descended from Eleanor of England daughter of King John. Through her grandfather Peter Count of St Pol she was also descended from Beatrice of England daughter of Henry III.

26

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: February 19, 2013, 02:22:30 PM »

Tudor policy (certainly under Henry VII) pretty much followed on from Edward IV and Richard III (neither of whom relied on the traditional arms of the medieval state as much as their Lancastrian predecessors)
It was also aided by a largely weakened aristocracy. The development of the church as a state arm was of course in part driven by Henry VIII's desire to father a male heir but the Lutheran view of a no popes in the biible but plenty of kings had its appeal as well especially to a man like Henry.
Edward IV had relied heavily on transferring regional power to various ultra loyal men - you could argue the marriages of his family and his wife's family had created a new nobility entirely dependent on the crown for its patronage etc binding them to the crown in a way that hadn't applied as much in the recent past - Wales (nominally the prince of wales' council - effectively Rivers), the Midlands (Hastings), the North (Richard of Gloucester), the South West (Grey).
Richard's accession or usurpation through all of that into disarray and meant he was much weaker than his brother had been - Edward's household had been largely based upon the people he'd known for years - friends and family.
Richard had a void to fill so naturally chose people he had known for years unfortunately their power base was exceptionally narrow and didn't really expand beyond those who benefited from his accession (such as the Howards).
He is of course far from the monster that has been portrayed in the following centuries but nor is he the perfect rennaissance prince so many Ricardians have portrayed him as over the years.
Interestingly now we know he did have a slight deformity it will give new fodder for historians to guess at the impact on the younger brother of being so very different from his taller, fittter, glamourous older brother.

I am familiar with the reliance upon non-traditional supporters, but I have always thought that was because it was his natural power base --- he simply was not going to pull in much of the southern nobility. Also, and this is the more important point, his reign is so brief (and unexpected by everyone, himself included) that I don't think you can make a lot of useful policy extrapolations based upon 18 months.

True - but then Henry VIII's move to make the Church an instrument of state was due to dynastic interest rather than specific policy to strengthen national autonomy - so I'd see a lot of happenstance in all of this, brought about or made possible by the changes in their societies. It's an evolution.

It might be possible to say what Richard intended where his policy as king follows on from actions as Lord of the North?

- Rosemary Horrox's view of him is that he was completely out of his depth as king, and essentially panicked. It may be her or it may be someone else who argued that this is the key to his character - by nature, he was thoughtful, merciful and pious, and when in control as a ruler he was able to demonstrate this; but when he felt he'd lost control he could be extremely ruthless (the treatment of Hastings et al attests to this, even if you leave aside the infamous Question of You-Know-Who), but not really effectively so. I am not sure at this stage if I agree - need to read more again - but it's certainly interesting.

Speaking of charisma, am I the only person who has never "got" the appeal of Henry VIII? I don't find him even fascinating as a monster...and I don't understand the endless tv series ad historical novels about the brute! As someone said, if ever there was a British monarch who deserved to be assassinated, it was Henry VIII (though I'd put William the Conqueror up there too; in this day and age, he'd be up at The Hague on charges of genocide).

27

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: February 19, 2013, 02:05:52 PM »

Yes and like a lot of programmes it ignores some of the real facts - it was based on work by a relatively well known historian i believe.
It is just one of a barrage of Ricardian theorising used to try and defend Richard III taking the throne in 1483 - Edward was illegitimate, Edward's marriage was invalid etc.
Nor was it any surprise there are numerous Plantagenet descendants some 'common' and some others titled - on the York side alone there are the descendants of George of Clarence (through his daughter Margaret Pole - Hastings is just one of those - descendants of Anne of York whose DNA was used to identify Richard III's body. There are numerous descendants of Isabel of York the aunt of Richard and Edward as well).
It is of course irrelevant Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest not by hereditary right - therefore the claims of anyone else were negated at least legally if not morally - his rights did not rest with his marriage to Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth (who had numerous Plantagenet descents through her own mother Elizabeth Woodville even if her father's only royal descent came through his mother Cecily Neville.)

As an interesting aside on Richard III,  I just saw an interesting program courtesy of You Tube. It was a 2004 show by Tony Robinson entitiled Britain's Real Monarch (for those of you unfamiliar with him he's an interesting chap who does an English version of History's Detective) on the possibilty that Edward IV was, in fact, illegitimate, thereby invalidating the claim of the Tudors (and their descendants) to the crown. The proof seems to hinge on the fact that Edward's Father was off in France fighting about the time he was supposed to have been conceived. If correct, this would mean that the throne would, in fact, revert to the Plantagenents. But, you might think, that Richard III was the last of that line and it ended on Bosworth Field. Apparently not. It appears there is a line of descendents through the Hastings family and the Earl of Loudon and, mirabile dictu, a descendent lives on in Australia, Michael Hastings. Actually a regular bloke who believes that Australia should be a Republic and sever its ties to England.

Here are the arguments from Wikipedia:

" In a 2004 television documentary it was revealed that records discovered in the archives of Rouen Cathedral indicate that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 (the five-week period in which Edward is likely to have been conceived) Edward's supposed father was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety. No evidence has survived which indicates that Edward was born prematurely. The programme also drew attention to the fact that the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish affair at the cathedral, whereas the christening of Edward, the firstborn, was low key, and in a side chapel. The programme concludes that Edward was illegitimate. For more details see the TV programme Britain's Real Monarch.

Counter-arguments to this theory are that the Duke of York could have returned to Rouen from Pontoise, because there was a road in English hands. The absence of evidence does not mean that Edward was not born prematurely. Because of high infant mortality, baptisms were often performed quickly, and Cecily had already had children who had died young. Richard, Duke of York, did not contest his paternity, and Edward IV could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not. Even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485."

       

28

The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified

« on: February 08, 2013, 06:47:19 AM »

The burial arguement is pretty much window dressing.
As is the case with any exhumation the licence clearly states the body should be reinterred as near to the place it originally rested I believe it specifies the Cathedral in Leicester or somewhere else appropriate at the discretion of the University of Leicester.
As to York Minster - it is has said further that it doesn't want to involve itself in an arguement between cathedrals. If there was a legal challenge at a later date it might be drawn further on the matter.
The arguement is a bit odd given both cathedrals's are now Anglican and Richard III was a Roman Catholic.
I find the row a bit unseemly and pointless - the exhumation and dna analysis give us fresh insight into Richard and suggest that tudor 'myth' about his appearance might have just been exageration of a slight deformity rather than completely made up- the burial row is about city's competing for tourists and their cash nothing more.
As I am from York i have no doubt many people believe Richard to be worthy of some recognition as a 'local' boy but the basis for the arguement is on the whole historically inaccurate and spurious.

29

The Tudors / Re: The Crimes of Richard III

« on: January 03, 2013, 06:53:26 PM »

I genuinely believe given Henry's reactions after his victory that he genuinely didn't know what had happened to his missing brothers in law accepting they were dead and blaming Richard was the sensible easiest and obvious thing to do though I suspect the not knowing the truth haunted him
As has been said they weren't seen after the summer of 1483 which means a few choices
1) death of both by natural causes even given 15th c health care standards unlikely for both of them
2) murder by men acting on Richard or someone else's orders
3) escape by some means with one or both reappearing as a pretender or opting for anonymity
4) the death of one or both during some botched rescue attempt
5) the death of one by natural causes and the survival escape or murder of the remaining one

Personally the most likely of those is 2 but I will give a possible nod to 4 or 5

And for the record I don't believe Richards actions were entirely down to personal ambition in fact I think he was manipulated into acting against a non existent enemy (his factual recorded relationship with the queen and her brother was pretty amicable ) once he began with the arrests of rivers et all and taking control he had begun on a path he could not turn away from.

30

The Windsors / Re: Government starts effort to change succession law

« on: January 02, 2013, 07:04:14 PM »

Personally as this is largely about the recent planned change to the succession laws I think we should leave aside any arguments about the behaviour perceived or otherwise. I agree with the previous post reference the matter.
The idea of a royal family as the embodiment of middle class values and mores was by enlarge a reaction of Victoria and Albert to their own family background and the changing world of the 19th century as made clear in the excellent BBC series Victoria's children being shown currently a view rejected by Edward vii who thought his private life was his own and reemphasised by his son George v
In many ways it worked and ensured the monarchy survived but in the 21st century of mass media instant reaction and a very different society it isn't necessary to the monarchy in the same way