Richard III discussion

Your assignment, if you choose to accept, is to read this book and report back in a week or two with comments.

I'm thinking maybe we could cover it a chapter at a time, starting with the The Witnesses--chapter the third to mirror Richard the third. After which, we can deal with a chapter (or two, depending) each week. This will allow us to read as we discuss.

Joan

So when do we want to have The Witnesses read?

If you've already read it, jump right in with comments and observations. Hopefully, enough of us will have read this chapter by Monday, April 13. Then we can move to the next chapter. We'll see. If more finish early, we can move to the next one sooner. Also, some of us will have to get the book out of the library or some dusty recess behind the more current books next to where the cat naps.

Let's have some FUN!!!

Dang, I'm going to have to put Joan on as co-mod :)

Can someone tell me what the Witnesses is?

PS, I had to put a hold again at the library so the earliest I guess I will get it is this weekend.

The Witnesses is the third chapter of Royal Blood. The speed at which we move through the chapters will depend on how well people can obtain the book. I noticed that Amazon has it for around five dollars used. With shipping it would still come to under ten, so if your budget allows, I recommend its addition to your library.

I have to say, I love this group! Thank you, Misfit, for sending me here. I don't have as much time to write as I would like but my lunch hours have certainly become much more interesting and entertaining since I joined! I have learned so much in the past few weeks. And I think I will go over to the Tudor History group and resign from European Royalty - they are getting a little away from what I like and I can't follow everything. ... And thank you Joan for proposing Fields as a book to read. For me it will be a reread - I read it when it first came out and loved the whole idea of a trained legal mind who didn't grow up with any British school-induced prejudices taking a look at the puzzle. I was a book seller at the time and I staff selected it and nattered on about it to anyone who would listen! Most of my staff thought I was a tad crazy but that was nothing new ;)...........

Okay, it appears the discussion of this book will be extended to allow enough time for people who need to get a copy. Therefore, jump in with any comment and observation when you have it. We won't go chapter by chapter as it looks like that format will be too limiting.

Thanks to everyone who wants to participate.

I've extended the time to read by another month. If anyone wants separate threads to break the book apart let me know and we can do that.

Thank you Misfit. For now, I think we'll see how it goes. Looking forward to everyone's comments.

I have long been intrigued by the fact that More laid aside his "History of King Richard III" unfinished. Fields has several suggestions for the reason. Have any of you speculations on this subject you would care to share?

The theory that one of the princes married More's daughter and that he wrote this account to throw certain people off his son-in-laws trail feels wrong to me. More married his first wife in 1505 which would mean his oldest daughter would have to be at least 30 years younger than the younger prince (assuming she was born the same year that More married). It also seems unlikely that Henry VII would not have been aware of a surviving prince living "in plain sight" as it were. He'd had spies everywhere. That's one of the reasons why I'm not completely convinced of David Baldwin's theory (in "The Lost Prince: the Survival of Richard of York") that Richard of York was put into deep hiding and emerged as Richard of Eastwell--although I do think Baldwin's has more merit.

I think the theory that he was loath to create history is weak--although I think this has more merit.

My half baked-theory was that Henry VIII gave him access to Bishop Morton who was witness to some of the events of the time and knew Richard III, the princes, and others who played a part in the events, including Henry VII's mother, Margaret Beaufort. Then as the story progressed, certain aspects didn't fit. For one, so much of the story was based on rumor and speculation.

But the biggest problem was probably that there were no bodies. I think I read (sorry I can't remember where) that based on what More had so far, Henry VIII ordered the tower be searched and the base of the stairwell be excavated, but they still could find no bodies. Maybe More suggested they were moved at a later time?

I think that Henry VIII suppressed the account because it would have created doubt about the validity of the Tudor reign and perhaps have given his political enemies an old cause to rally around.

More himself may have begun to suspect that Richard III didn't murder the princes or even know what really happened to them. But he could hardly write an account exonerating Richard III, especially if Henry had told him to abandon the project.

I actually wonder how many ordinary people really sat around pondering the Tudor claim to the throne in the 1520s. I mean, it was already 'a long time ago' and most of the Yorkist claimants had been bumped off. The one real danger left was Margaret Pole and her sons. I doubt many folk took any sort of academic interest in history, any more than they do now.

The main motive for blackening Richard III's name (presuming it needed to be blackened) was the justification of the Tudor usurpation. But if the Princes were both legitimate and dead, Henry VIII was the rightful heir through his mother anyway.

So why was he so flipping paranoid? Either he was certifiable, or he knew his title was in truth well dodgy, or both. My money is on 'both', actually.

It makes sense that Henry VII was paranoid. He DID gain his crown through some strange means that could easily be challenged by the British themselves or other countries in Europe, and he spent most of his youth in exile, in the middle of intrigue, double crossing, backstabbing, and secretive planning, and hopping from country to country lest one court decide they'd had enough of him and ship him back to England to be killed by Edward IV.

So he knew better than most how many people were turncoats, or pretending to be loyal while secretly plotting with someone else, because he was at the center of that for years.

You don't spend 27 years or so in that lifestyle and then shake it off in a day. You spend the rest of your life certain that someone is always 2 steps behind you with a knife poised.

....Here I am, hating people who play psychologist on historical figures, and I just did it myself. Oops.

I did say my theory was half-baked. ;-)

However, why would More instigate his own research Richard III? What would be his motive? Henry VIII would have more interest in his great uncle than would More. Also, I don't think the plots to overthrow the current regime had ended once Henry VIII became king.

And couldn't Buckingham's son have challenged Henry? That would throw at least one other challenger into the mix besides Margaret Pole's sons.

Well Joan, Buckingham was one of the first to be axed! 1521 was it? The Suffolk line had previously been stamped out. That left, broadly, the Pole clan and the Courtenays. The latter were by definition behind Elizabeth of York's descendants in the pecking order, the Poles only had a (Yorkist) claim if she was illegitimate.

Actually that isn't quite it on the Yorkist side as you had people like Anne of York's (Edward IV's sister that is) descendants, but that's really starting to scrape the barrel. The present Duke of Rutland would be King on that basis!

I suppose my point is that if Henry VIII believed his own side's version of history, he should have felt reasonably secure as the only son of Elizabeth of York. Because according to that she was her father's heir and Edward IV (after 1471) was both heir-general and heir-male of Edward III. His hereditary claim was (in those terms) unimpeachable.

Well, 1521 is later than when More "investigated" r3 (1515-1518), so it's not impossible that Henry was worried about him regardless of whether it made sense to or not.

I'm not saying my theory is right, but I still don't see why More would think of writing the "history", let alone abandoning it. My thinking is Henry would have a stronger interest in destroying Richard than would More. If it was Henry who spurred More to do the project, then the reasons for More stopping do point to Henry again.

Thinking about it, More did write on Henry's orders when he wrote that book against Luther, which was supposedly Henry's own, but in reality More acted as ghost writer.

So it could have been another, similar project.

By the way, I was recently reading Froude's Henry VIII, a Victorian work, and it refers to a plot by a couple of the surviving Nevilles. Apparently someone alleged Edward of Lancaster left a son. To matter, such a son would have had to have been by Anne Neville!

Okay, I'm rereading Royal Blood (along with reading 2 other books) and Fields does write like a lawyer! Which is great in this instance because he methodically dissects each arguement so well. Currently I'm in the middle of Chapter VIII, Usurper or Rightful King? He is very disdainful about Alison Weir!

I've just gotten through Chapter 3. I have had this book in my library for a few months, but I admit I'm a little nervous about it. I've heard how he delights in ripping Alison Weir to pieces. And while I agree that Alison Weir certainly lets her biases shine through in her writings, regardless of evidence, I'm always uncomfortable when I see writers taking pot shots at people.

For example, I bought a book called like "Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar" which described philosophical principles through jokes. Most of these jokes were at the expense of certain political leaders/parties. Though technically I agreed with their assessment, just the fact that they stooped to that level really bothered me. It also just feels like the point should be able to stand on its own; you shouldn't have to tear someone else down to make it if it's truly a good point.

(I guess I mean the tearing down should almost be IMPLIED. That is, if you're point is that there is no evidence that Richard killed his sons except for biased writers, it should implicit that Alison Weir had no evidence for her assumption. If you tell me what a straw man is, you shouldn't have to tell me "har har look at this idiot politician that does it." If you've really done a good job at making your point, I should be able to pick up on the rest on my own.)

What can I say; if you turn almost anyone into an underdog, I'll usually start to feel sympathy pangs for them, no matter what my opinion in a vacuum is. So we'll see if I can slog through those parts.

Sorry...someday I promise to make a post here that isn't 4 pages long!

I can't agree with your reasoning, MAP. My understanding is that Fields approached the mystery as a lawyer defending the accused: Richard III. To do his job properly, he must show the cases against his client cannot be defended. I see no ad hominem attacks against Weir--rather he's countering her assertions by either showing there is no basis for them or there is a body of documentation that belies what Weir put forth. Also, considering Weir's popularity, I think Fields had to address her excoriation of Richard head on.

I'm only on Chapter 5, but I've already seen a couple references to Weir that seemed more than just refuting her argument. I'm sure by the end of it I'll have more.


So I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. ;)

EDIT: Aaaah I had this whole big analogy about me being a jurist and Weir being on trial for slander, and how best to persuade me of her guilt, but it was getting out of hand, because I was starting to cite research about juries and our justice system, and, ultimately, it's way off topic. So I'll just leave it.

*LOL*

It's been awhile since I've read both Fields and Weir, so I got the Weir book out of the library and have been going through Fields (just finishing up Chapter 3) and couldn't find any attacks on Weir personally, only her research and conclusions. In reading Weir, I was struck with how she ascribed motive to different people. How could she know what their motives were? For example, she writes that More never intended to write Tudor propaganda. While that may be true, how can she know this? I'm not opposed to a fiction writer imagining what went on in a character's head or why a person acted as he did, I don't think it has a place in non-fiction unless it's clearly delineated that the author came to this conclusion because of x,y, and z.

Who was the second Croyland continuator?

Fields notes two people who could have suited. The second continuator was educated (supposedly had a doctorate in canon law) and close to the center of power. His work covered 1459-1486, but the bulk of the writing covered the two years that Richard reigned. The candidates are:
1. John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln and Richard's chancellor until July 1485: Russell also served under Edward IV and went on several diplomatic missions for him and held a doctorate in what may have been thought to be canon law (although Fields indicates that this might be stretching it). Fields ticks off many reasons against Russell being the continuator such as the writing in Croyland is inconsistent with Russell's known writings, comes down hard against Henry VII where Henry took no action against him,and harshly attacks some policies of which Russell was at least partly responsible for.
2. Henry Sharp: lesser known and a weaker candidate--but because of the objections to Russell, I think Fields likes him better for this job. He had also retired by the time the continuation was written and had a doctorate that could also have loosely been in canon law. Interestingly, Sharp had been associated with John Morton, Bishop of Ely--an enemy of Richard III. In 'The Mystery of the Princes' Audrey Williamson posits that Morton was the continuator.

One of the attacks against Richard in Croyland is that he wantonly depleted the treasury and as a result, had to reinstate the hated benevolences. Although Richard may have done the equivalent of the auto execs taking their private jets to Washington to ask for bailouts when he held that extravagant pagent celebrating Christmas in 1484, much of the treasury had been seized by the Woodvilles and an estimated third went to France to support Henry Tudor.

According to Horrox and Hammond in the introduction of Volume One of Harleian Manuscript 433, Richard did not reinstate the benevolences, but took out loans (Richard's second register lists them as loans to be paid back). I remember seeing reprints of some letters Richard wrote asking for loans (in Paston Letters, I think but I'm not sure).

I'm slowly working my way through this one whilst doing my 30 min. cardio at the gym and I'm almost done. I am enjoying it, especially the look at it from a lawyer's viewpoint. His theory on Tyrell's (sp?) confession is fascinating, as his viewpoints on the bones in the tower (still working on that chapter). He does knock Weir around a bit, but from what I've heard about her and her research well.....

In reference to Royal Blood, you know that wonderful Millain painting on the cover? The original will be part of a special exhibition at the Yale Museum of British Art (Yale Center for British Art? -whatever it's called!) this summer. It's a special show of stuff from the Royal Holloway Collection. I'm a museum volunteer and will be going with some friends; will report back sometime in July.

I'd love to see that painting. I just finished the book and I enjoyed it very much. Still leaves you wondering what really happened.

Since I don't believe the boys were killed and that they survived Richard, I came up with my own theory of what Richard had done and what happened to them, which I put in my book, even though it takes place today. I vetted my speculation with three Ricardians in that they agree it could have happened the way I proposed.

While my speculation isn't the same as one of Fields' scenarios in detail, I do agree that they probably weren't killed and ran with it--after all, he is my protagonist.

I believe 'Royal Blood' was specifically a repudiation of Weir's popular "fiction". 'The Princes in the Tower' was first published in 1992 and 'Royal Blood' in 1998. In order to make his case as Richard's defense, Fields had to tear down Weir's case (not her) point by point.

Joan
--
This Time
ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
http://www.joanszechtman.com/

Good point Joan; I never actually thought of Royal Blood as a purposeful repudiation of Weir's book but it does seem to be just that; written like a good defense lawyer! And, I knew you had written a book but hadn't explored further until today, when I clicked on the link to your website and read the excerpt. I was leary at first about the time travel aspect but now - I'm hooked! I am definitely putting this on my list as I can't wait to see what happens next. :)

Thank you, Patricia. I look forward to your comments.

That's what I found interesting in Field's book is his theory of the Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel (sp?) attempts, let alone his "what if" at the end.

I just had a chance to reread some more of 'Royal Blood' and found where Fields explicitly states he's examining Weir's declarations. On page 22 of the paperback edition (2000) Fields writes:
"However, if Richard was guilty, nothing in Weir's book demonstrates it. Essentially, her 'proof' that he murdered his nephews consists of two skeletons discovered in the Tower of London in 1674, some infereces wholly unsupported by the 'evidence' she offers and the opinions and assertions of 'contemporary' sources susch as Rous and More, which Weir is inclined to treat as proven fact. We will analyze that 'proof' in detail."

It is this last sentence which must have been floating around in some neurons deep in my noggin that prompted me to "suspect" he wrote this book to counter Weir and do it as a defense lawyer would.

Interestingly, he also challenges some of Charles Ross's assertions, pointing out that some of his misdirection were those of omission, rather than commission. While not having the same "best-seller" popularity of Weir's book, Ross is a respected scholar, and IMO, his damnation of Richard is more narrowly damaging and insidious.