Blackboar @blackboar - Tumblr Blog

Journey to Bosworth: every parts.

Here a links to the seven parts of my 'Journey to Bosworth'. It tries to talks about the Battle of Bosworth, its participants, and their motives. Hope you enjoy it!

Journey to Bosworth: Henry Percy, the failed fence-sitter.

Journey to Bosworth: John de Vere, earl of Oxford, the diehard Lancastrian.

Journey to Bosworth: Behind Henry Tudor, the hand of France.

Journey to Bosworth: Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley, the successful fence-sitter and the unknown Kingmaker.

Journey to Bosworth: A Nation of Fence-Sitters

Journey to Bosworth: The Howards, rising stars in England

Journey to Bosworth, conclusion. Why did Richard III lose?

#journey to bosworth #richard iii #henry vii of england #henry percy #earl of Northumberland #John de Vere #Earl of Oxford #France #the mad war #Britanny #Sir William Stanley #Lord Thomas Stanley #Thomas Howard #earl of Surrey #John Howard #Duke of Norfolk

mangled-by-disuse

i feel like we don't talk enough about the County-Palatinate of Durham

i feel like at some point in general english history education people should at least touch on the theocratic city-state where the bishops had rights otherwise unique to the monarch UNTIL 1836????

WE HAD OUR OWN MINI-VATICAN SITUATION IN ENGLAND LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO AND NOBODY OUTSIDE COUNTY DURHAM EVER SEEMS TO KNOW THAT.

mangled-by-disuse

like they weren't TAXED they were sitting in the middle of the wool trade (up until the bottom fell out of the english wool trade in the 16th century) and the coal trade and they were EXEMPT FROM NATIONAL TAX COLLECTIONS

they had their own courts! they had their own judges! they had their own militias to call up independent of the Crown! they had their own maritime court as well, so they had their own naval and port authority! they had their own customs and excise!

i need everyone to understand how fucking wild the county-palatinate of durham is as a concept this just EXISTED for hundreds of years and nobody seems to know about it

mangled-by-disuse

last unhinged county-palatinate post of the night i swear but

this, on reflection, makes it both way weirder and slightly more explicable that 90% of england straight-up does not know county durham exists, or goes "oh, is that in ireland?"

it also kind of makes sense of why county durham is like. the only english county with that "county [name]" structure? because it's only been county durham since it ceased being the county-palatinate of durham. and was never included in the shire system because it was busy being basically a vassal kingdom.

#Durham #the duchy of Lancaster was the same stufff #but it isn't a 'vassal kingdom #they don't have much foreign policy #just an english place with very special privileges

Are Paul Murray Kendall’s biographies of Warwick and Richard III worth checking out? Do you have other recommendations for the wars of the roses?

Paul Murray Kendall is very outdated as an author. i read his biographies in French.

Warwick's biography is mediocre. There is basically 30 pages on his life up to the first battle of Saint-Albans, who casually gloss over two-thirds of his life. I must say that this period is not unimportant or uneventful in his life (even if ill-documented). There is his family's rivalry with other Nevilles, and with the Percies, who basically ended in its own little civil war. There is the rising issue of Scotland, of his relationship with other magnates and the king himself, who's not addressed at all.

His father is a non-entity. Kendall presents him like a medieval Obi-Wan-Kenobi who must die for Warwick to thrive on his own. His relationship with his family isn't addressed except when it's basically impossible not to do so (with his brother John Neville and more secondary with George Neville). His wife doesn't exist.

In other words, Paul Murray Kendall talks about what he wants to talk about: the Kingmaker and his international shenanigans, his relations with Louis XI, and his kingmaking status. And even there it's deeply flawed. Kendall essentializes the War of the Roses basically saying that yup, the Yorkists are the rightful rulers. And of course, Warwick is bound to support them as his cousin (no talks of how the Nevilles deeply hesitated on their side in the 1450s). Margaret is a paranoid, scheming queen. Henry VI is hollow and unimportant as he became mad in the period it mattered. Louis XI is the master-manipulator of Neville's big ego.

I prefer a lot more Warwick's biography by Mickael Hicks, who do not gloss over his upbringing and decisive moments in the 1440s. Even though there are flaws (he might be a bit pro-Lancastrian and, on the reverse, treat Henry VI almost as if he didn't suffer from severe mental issues).

I like more his biography of Richard III more for purely sentimental reasons because it's the first I've read on the War of the Roses. It's also more balanced, considering Richard III didn't live long, which means he doesn't erase the 'unimportant' period as much as with Warwick. But even there, it's not great. Having a pro-Ricardian viewpoint is okay, but he also does not discuss Richard's strategy for becoming a powerful magnate. His biography is somewhat naive in refusing to consider Richard as he is: a skilful politician.

Still, I will grant one point: he makes some good personal interpretation. Especially on Richard III: from his estrangement from his nephews to his view of Buckingham as another Clarence... He has some good points and can put himself on Richard III's head. However, I prefer Ross and Hicks' work on the period.

#Paul Murrais kendall #Richard III #Warwick #war of the roses

Why can Henry Richmond get engaged without Elizabeth or her guardian present in York? (It's also possible because I don't know much about Elizabeth's uncle and brother in York)

Well he can't, hence why he promised to marry and didn't pull a formal engagement.

#war of the roses #Henry VII #Elizabeth of York

Why didn't Richard III let George Neville get married before?If George had children in his hands, wouldn't he be so passive in terms of northern wealth?

Well it's difficult for him to find the right bride: someone noble enough as to not make a scandal and someone who isn't a rich heir or coming from a powerful family that could back George's claim to the Neville lands.

Also, I think that Gloucester thought he had time; George was 18 when he died.

#George Neville #Gloucester #Neville inheritance

There are still questions! I'm curious about how William Hastings viewed Edward V being controlled by his uncle? Richard demands the execution of Edward's brother and uncle! If Hastings supports Edward V's succession to the throne, isn't he worried that it will lead to the anger of the young king??

Hence why Hastings didn't support their execution.

Hastings was in a good spot to curry the favor of Edward V. He didn't arrest any Woodvilles. He just consented to Gloucester's arrest. And his opposition to their trial/execution could ingratiate him to the king even more. Hence Gloucester's coup: their position toward the king is not the same.

I think Hastings would never depose the son of his friend and suzerain, and was optimistic about his chances of having a good relationship with him. Also, Hastings was in his 50s. Even if he didn't, his career was on its end while Richard's wasn't.

#Hastings #Edward V #war of the roses

I have read a sentence that Henry VII knew about Warbeck's activities a long time ago, and even paid espionage fees to Edward Woodville for it. The latter bypassed Lisbon for inspection in 1486?

I do not recall that but Warbeck was probably too young to be a threat in 1486. I do recall him spying on exiled supporters of Richard III. Maybe the Lisboa inspection is about that.

#Perkin Warbeck #Henry VII #war of the roses

I have always read a saying that Warbeck wrote a letter to Isabella I, recording that "his brother" was ordered to be executed by Richard III? The testimony that Langley has discovered now is different

I don't know what Langley's testimony is but it's probable that Warbeck changed his story from time to time. He's in a complicated spot, considering he would welcome the support of Ricardians but needed to state someone killed Edward V so as to legitimise his claim on the throne.

#Perkin Warbeck #war of the roses

Did Richard iii had very negative reputation during his own lifetime ?? ( After he usurped the throne from his nephew )

Philippe de Commines tells that he is a very bad man , an extremely evil men , full of pride than english kings of last hundred years .

He did. Not a unanimous bad reputation but the disappearance of his nephews is a reputational blow that someone simply can't recover from. Ask John Lackland. However, I do think, as for John, that it didn't mean that his reign was doomed.

Commynes was a french servant, by definition anti-Richard. But his criticisms come from a widely shared opinion on Richard III

#Richard III

I want to clear it , did glouscester

planned to take the throne immediately after his brother died ??

Or to save the country from a minority rule ??

Or both , blending his ambition so smoothly with the current political situation so that no one could suspect him of usurping ??

I think he did plan to push his advantage as much as he possibly can. His early actions were a huge success, so he kept pushing until he took the throne. He probably also thought, for a various set of reasons (Potential woodille revenge, death of george Neville) that usurpation was the safest couse of action for him.

I think he could have rationalized that as saving the country from minority rule, although he didn't save anything, considering his reign was unstable.

#Richard III #1483 #war of the roses

What's your opinion about the upcoming short film a taste of loyalty ?? Do you think it could improve Richard's reputation ??

Well, you informed me of its existence. In general, I don't think that it would do much, considering this is mainly a debate around initiated/passionate people.

I have read a saying that shortly before the death of Edward IV, he refused his brother Richard's request to completely hand over George Neville's land to him?

This comment believes that this is the main reason for Richard III's usurpation of the throne

It's not that but indeed, George Neville play a major role in Gloucester's usurpation.

Recall that Gloucester's wealth and power come from his Neville northern lands. It's what give him a distinct power base, that he reinforced through various acquisitions in the 1470s. However, Gloucester have this estates through a dubious judicial construction. Those lands were in tail male, which means only men could inherit them. After Warwick and his brother's death, those lands should pass on to George Neville, the next male heir.

Gloucester wanted those lands but didn't want them from a royal grant that could easily be canceled. Hence why he made a weird juridic construction: he would held them from his wife, while the true heir couldn't inherit them because his father was attainted. Meanwhile, do note Warwick was never attainted, as all his lands would go back to the Crown.

So Richard held this lands through a juridical fiction who made him appear as heir. He needed George alive because if George died, the lands would come to the unattainted lord Latimer. But he needed George weak to make sure he would not challenge him, judicially or otherwise. Hence why he attempted to take his custody, manage his marriage, etc...

George dying means that Gloucester's power was endangered. He could try to make a new judicial settlement, but his position was open to attack, and any king could ally with Latimer to weaken an overmighty subject.

On the other hand, Gloucester was more powerful than ever because he was lord Protector by May and also the victor of a recent war with Scotland.

What happened in June was his answer to this problem.

#war of the roses #richard iii #George Neville #btw #you can see how the 1483 events happened inside a very precise timeline #it would have be more difficult for Richard to do it two years before or two years after

annettecarson.com/ricardian-topic/Annette Carson has several articles that do not require payment. I don't know if you have read them, but I hesitate. On the Lord Protector's side, I support her view that Richard has the right to execute people who may be guilty of treason, but I still believe that Hastings is innocent. Moreover, her bias is too severe, and her prejudice against Richard's' enemy 'is almost overflowing. She said that one of the important reasons why Richard captured Rivers was that Rivers did not ensure the safety of Edward V and threw the king to a place where the Lancastrians might appear (Lancaster in 1483, how interesting!)

I have read her article and personally think it's false. There's a difference between what is technically legal(ish) and what the political community consider as legal/justified/acceptable.

Hastings ought to get a trial before a court of his peers, normally in a semi-public fashion. A constable's office usually executes people during wartime, which isn't the case.

Carson theorises that we are judging Gloucester through our standards, but even his contemporaries thought it was an abuse of power. He did respect some legal niceties. We don't know much, but I'm sure he managed to get 2-3 peers to back him up on a sham trial. But the swiftness and the private manner of Hastings' execution are not normal. The usual precedent would be the 1330 coup, but Edward III judged Mortimer publicly because he had legitimacy, and some accusations were true. Richard didn't because he barely had the former and lacked the latter.

So I do not think Richard III's execution of Hastings, although having some legal grounds, was legal for medieval times.

#Hastings #Richard III #Considering how Richard III made sure to never reopen the Hasting case by NOT attainting him #He knew that legality was fishy there #btw having a hasty trial of a peer in private is never acceptable in medieval times #Look a France with John II executing his constable in 1350 #Despite being king #it wasn't acceptable #Hence why the Tudors #for all their crimes #Mostly managed to respect the forms of legality

In fact, I am not sure if Richard's easy destruction of Woodville's power base represents a strong dislike from their family. Because Richard arrested Rivers, the core leader of Woodville, and personally controlled Edward V. Elizabeth Woodville and her children entered the monastery together, which meant that London was completely controlled by people like Hastings, Buckingham, or Howard. Richard is different from previous usurpers in that he did not seize the throne through war, but through small-scale coups. This means that those high-ranking nobles did not participate in it, This is Rosemary Horrox observed, the breakout of war "reduced the compulsion to uphold the king as the embodiment of stability" and generally forced/enabled the nobility and gentry to openly choose sides. But this was not the case with Richard - he did not seize power through a war, or inherit a country embroiled in domestic conflict, but simply through a swift, internal, unexpected coup. There was little external compulsion for anyone to turn on him the way they did. They had almost no strong need to confront Richard, nor were they sure what he would do. After Hastings' death, it was too late. The northern army has surrounded London, and dissatisfied people can only start rebelling after Richard's coronation ceremony.

I think it does, considering how little blowback their downfall had. Recall that Edward Neville tried to flee with the entire fleet and nobody obeyed him. The queen didn't attempt to flee to any power base like Margaret of Anjou in the 1450s, she took refuge in a monastery.

Hastings's faction could be decapitated with a single axe. The Woodvilles were numerous but none attempted an uprising. They only managed to wield a (secondary) role in Buckingham's rebellion through the uprising of central-west England but that was because they had a broader cause to rally men behind.

Many uprisings didn't have the throne at direct stake but magnates still managed to raise men (1403 rebellion, the 1450s, 1469 rebellion...). If the Woodvilles failed to do so, it's in part because of their unpopularity and in part because they were too dependent on royal offices. They didn't have a clear, feudal power base.

#war of the roses #the Woodvilles

The claim that Cecily Neville or Margaret of Burgundy asked Edward IV to forgive George does not come from contemporary records. I consider myself a creator of modern novels. Cecily is the godmother of Edward's youngest daughter and the only son mentioned in the will. After Margaret returned to England in 1475, she specifically visited Rivers to discuss the translation and publication of books. Of course, this cannot prove their ideas. But it is more worthy of proof than the claims of modern novels.

It's nice to know that. But I do think that Cecily would do anything to spare her son, and it's a good bet that Margaret would attempt that too, considering their closeness.

#Clarence #Margaret of York #Cecily Neville

A possibly strange question about Margaret Beaufort and Cecily of York. The current mainstream view is that Cecily was stripped of her property due to her third marriage and then expelled from the palace... However, all the books I have read about Margaret helping Cecily who was expelled in 1502 are evidence of her interest in Cecily's Welsh property obtained through Margaret Beaufort's 1502 ledger. However, in my opinion, this cannot be considered as evidence that Cecily must have been deprived of her property, nor can it be confirmed that she got married at this time. The version on Wikipedia also cannot determine the date of marriage.I would like to know if you are aware of any other books that provide clearer evidence?

Hello,

Frankly, at this point, you know more than me on this peticuliar topic.

Cecily feared that she would be stripped of her dowry as viscountess Wells, it's quite probable this welsh property wasn't part of this dowry and was part of another deal between her and Margaret Beaufort. I don't know any book discussing that.

#Margaret Beaufort #Cecily of York

After Richard placed Rivers and his group under house arrest in 1483 and they entered London, the committee's attitude seemed clear that they did not believe there would be a coup. What is the reason for this? They seemed to expect Richard to release them after the coronation of Edward V. (What I mean is, after being under house arrest for a period of time, their relationship has clearly broken down, and it seems that many people believe that Richard decided to usurp the throne to protect himself at this time...)

The committee didn't think it was a coup because Richard didn't attack them; it attacked the Woodvilles. The Woodvilles were seen as greedy and determined to monopolise royal favor and maybe even the exercise of his prerogatives until his majority. Stopping them satisfies not only Richard, but also Hastings, Stanley, Howard and many others.

Nobody thought that putting the Woodvilles on house arrest would burn every bridge between Edward V and Richard. It's killing them that would do it. Gloucester's actions weren't seen as that radical considering blood wasn't shed at that time.

#richard iii #war of the roses #Edward V #Woodvilles

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Blackboar